HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
eo ay ye
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
& Investigation of the Fur-Seal Industry
of Alaska
ek
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
Sixty-Toirp Coneress, SECOND SEssIon
JOHN H. ROTHERMEL, of Pennsylvania, Chairman,
JOHN H. STEPHENS, of Texas. ALLAN B. WALSH, of New Jersey.
JOHN T. WATKINS, of Louisiana. BIRD S. McGUIRE, of Oklahoma.
HENRY BRUCKNER, of New York. CHARLES E, PATTON, of Pennsylvania.
HIN OF 186 }
: hae? es tARIES z a
scheint
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOE
1914
Pe
ay
za"
4 ie ti
ey
HEARINGS
j
WN \t BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Investigation of the Fur-Seal Industry
of Alaska
{ os a ¢ — iA 5 ¢
eS Conc yess. -
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE
Sixty-TuHirp ConGREss, SECOND SESSION
JOHN H. ROTHERMEL, of Pennsylvania, Chairman.
JOHN H. STEPHENS, of Texas. ALLAN B. WALSH, of New Jersey.
JOHN T. WATKINS, of Louisiana. BIRD S. McGUIRE, of Oklahoma.
HENRY BRUCKNER, of New York. CHARLES E. PATTON, of Pennsylvania.
JENN
if
\ NOV 3 =
XQ he sie LIER AR 2
WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOE
1914
<5
ree
Ed Viste ac
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Hous oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Monday, October 13, 1913.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
The CHarrRMAN. I see there is a quorum present. The committee
has no clerk, so | suppose we will have to proceed without calling the
rol. Mr. Walsh, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. McGuire are present, and so
there is a quorum. °
Mr. Elliott, you may take the stand.
STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY W. ELLIOTT.
(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)
Secretary ReprreLp. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ?
The CHarRMAN. Certainly.
Secretary RepFIELD. How much time am I wanted to give now to
this investigation? That is one question which I wanted to ask, and
whether it is the purpose of the committee that I should appear as
a witness in any way, which I shall be glad todo. Iask that question
because I have not yet read my morning’s mail, and there are matters
of the very largest importance that I must act upon to-day. I have
to leave the city on Thursday to be gone until the 4th of November,
and it will not be possible for me toremain. In the meantime almost
every hour of my time will be taken by pressing matters. My
Assistant Secretary is absent from the city. If I am wanted merely
as a matter of interest to me, I shall have to ask Dr. Jones to take
my place, but if I am wanted to serve the committee, I shall be glad
to do that.
The CuarrMan. Mr. Secretary, we sent you a notice of the meeting
so in case you saw fit to be present you would have an opportunity.
Secretary RepFIELD. J wish J had nothing else to do.
The Cuarrman. We certainly do not care to detain you here so far
as the committee is concerned, but we thought that we would give
you an opportunity to be present.
Secretary REDFIELD. [ appreciate that. J am deeply interested in
this whole subject; it concerns me very deeply. I appreciate and am
erateful for the ight which Mr. Elliott throws upon the whole sub-
ject matter. I should like very much, Mr. Elliott having been sworn,
to take this opportunity to make a statement to the committee
Hey you may or may not desire to have made a portion of your
record. .
The Cuarrman. You may proceed to make the statement, Mr.
Secretary. :
3
4 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Secretary Reprretp. And after that I will ask, if I may, to be
excused, subject to your call at any time, and J] will ask Dr. Jones
to represent me before the committee.
J am in the fullest sympathy with the wish of the committee not
only to throw the fullest light upon the present situation, but upon
the past, and shall be glad to cooperate in any way that is within
my lawful power or within the scope of my personal ability in carrying
out to the spirit and to the letter what I regard as very wise and sound
legislation for the protection of our seal herds. I should lke the
spirit of the Bureau of Fisheries and of the department to be under-
stood as in the broadest way to be in accord with the purposes of
the legislation and of your committee.
I think you ought to know that some weeks ago I instructed the
Acting Commissioner of Fisheries to omit from the estimates for th»
coming year the post now filled by the gentleman whose title is that
of chief of the Alaska division, Dr. Evermann. I felt that that post
was no longer necessary, that it was a needless expense, and I will
frankly say that I also felt that Dr. Evermann’s attitude toward the
legislation which is now the law was not such as seemed to me desir-
able in the person holding that responsible position. At the same
time I gave instructions that the employment by the department of
Mr. Lembkey, who was, as I remember, the only survivor of the
former staff at the islands, should be terminated, and several days
ago I had the pleasure of approving and marking final his last pay
check. These changes were made because I deemed it entirely
desirable to be rid of any elements that were not in accord with the
law as it stands, and because, as I say, the posts were deemed un-
necessary. ,
The intended organization of the bureau under the estimates now
pending and which will be presented to the next session will be to do
away with the Alaska division, as it has been called, and to place the
entire supervision of the Alaska work—fisheries, fur animals on shore,
and the seal islands, all of it—under the direct responsibility of Dr.
Jones, the deputy commissioner, so that there will be one officer,
and he a prominent one, who will be directly responsible for that work.
I have been obliged to proceed with this rather earlier than would
have been the case, because of the fact that the law requires my esti-
mates to be in on the 15th. That is in part the reason why I have
not the time to remain at your session as I should be glad to do. I
must meet with the President in the morning upon the estimates,
as they must be ready by the 15th. In courtesy to the Commissioner
of Fisheries, who is absent on important business in Europe, I would
have preferred to defer making these changes until his return and
defer the announcement of them until I could confer with him, but
his absence from the city and the fact that these changes had to
appear in the estimates, which must be submitted before he returns,
have made it necessary to act thus in advance. I have felt it desirable
to make this statement, so that you might know, in considering the
whole matter, what the attitude of the department was on this subject.
The CHarrMAN. Mr. Secretary, we thank you for appearing here
and giving us this light on your policies, and unless there is objection
we will make your statement a part of the hearing.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Secretary, may I ask you a question ?
Secretary RepFieLp. Certainly.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 5
Mr. McGuire. Do I understand from your statement that you are
reducing the force on the islands ?
Secretary Reprretp. No. That force, as I recall—Dr. Jones
knows the details more intimately—is fixed by Congress. I think
we are leaving out the post of naturalist, are we not?
Dr. JonEs. Yes, sit.
Mr. McGurre. The changes which you have made——
Secretary REDFIELD (Ginterposing). Were administrative changes.
Mr. McGurre. Changes in the method ¢ ;
Secretary REDFIELD. Changes, to be very frank, in what I re-
garded as an injudicious continuance of personnel.
Mr. McGuire. Principally because you did not regard them as in
harmony with the administrative methods of the department ?
Secretary REDFIELD. Principally because the places were unneces-
sary, and I did not feel justified in continuing the expense, and also
because they were out of harmony with the administrative policy of
the department, and because I felt them to be out of harmony with
the law, which law I regard as a sound and wise one.
Mr. McGuire. What particular law is that?
Secretary Reprretp. The law having to do with the five-year
closed season for the seal islands.
Mr. McGuire. You do not mean to say that they were not willing
to comply with the law or to submit to the law?
Secretary Reprievp. No; I do not mean to accuse those gentle-
men of any act of disobedience, but I speak of their mental attitude,
their past attitude, which seemed to be inharmonious with the law of
Congress.
Mr. McGuire. That is all.
The CHarrMan. That is all, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Reprr=tp. I am very much obliged to you.
The CuarrMan. In accordance with the action of the committee on
June 20, the special committee visited the seal islands, and I under-
stand they have a report to make. That report has been printed.
Now, Mr. Elhott, will you take that up and submit it in your own
way, unless some member of the committee has a suggestion to make ?
Mr. Warxins. Inasmuch as the report is printed and we have
access to it, I think it would be better for him to give us an outline
and not go into detail, because that would take too much time.
The CuarrMan. I understand that there are certain details which
Mr. Elhott would like to explain from this map, as he suggested to
me this morning. .
Mr. Warxins. Anything which will throw any light on the report.
The CHarrMan. Suppose you proceed with it in that way, Mr.
Elhott.
Mr. Ev.iotr (reading):
The chairman and gentlemen of the committee
On the 31st of August last, Mr. Gallagher and myself submitted to you our report
of the condition of the fur seal herd of Alaska as we found that life last summer, and |
also the result of our examination into the condu:t of the public business on the
Pribilof Islands.
This report has just been printed by order of the committee and is now on the
table before us. Touching it I need say nothing more, but on submitting it to the
chairman last August he requ sted me to prepare a statement as an ‘‘expert,”’ and one
who for more than 40 years past has had a close personal understanding of the ques-
tion, to prepare a statement for the use of this committee which would declare the
real amount of property loss sustained by the Public Treasury——
6 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Watkins. You are reading now from a paper Wien. is not a
part of your report ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. Yes, sir. JI am coming to that point now. [Read-
ing:]
due to the mismanagement of the fur-seal herd by our own agents and officials
during the last 20 or 25 years.
I have done so, and now submit it to the committee. But, gentlemen, there is a
certain personal equation between that seal-island business and myself which can not
be well reduced to writing, and I am going at this point, and before I take up the
subject of that loss and its cause, to digress a little. I do so in order that you may
fully understand me and my understanding of the questions involved.
As an associate and collaborator of the Smithsonian Institution, I was asked by
Prof. Henry and Prof. Baird (secretary and assistant secretary) to go to the Pribilov
Islands, in April, 1872, there to study the biology of the fur-seal herd and make draw-
ings from the life and collections of specimens for the Institution. At that time there
was absolutely nothing specific known about the herd; no naturalist and artist had ever
lived with it or studied it until I did so during the seasons of 1872, 1873, 1874, and
1876; no naturalist had ever given to the literature of this life a single definite or cor-
rect impression of it until I published my monograph of the seal islands of Alaska, in
1882, based wholly upon my field notes of 1872-1876, properly elaborated and sys-
tematized.
Those findings of fact published by myself 31 years ago have been verified by this
committee in the hearings held by it during the last two years. All of the carping
and incompetent critics—all of the ‘‘scientific” prostitutes who have been busy since
1890 in denying my work have been brought to book under oath here, and compelled
to confess their complete ignorance, or worse, in the premises.
Mr. Warxtns. Excuse me. I do not think language of that kind
should go inte the report.
The CHAIRMAN. No.
Mr. Exrxic7r. Well, change it. As we go into the details, I believe
you will see that it expresses the truth.
The CHarRMAN. You will understand, Mr. Elhott, that the thing to
do is to submit facts.
Mr. Exxiorr. I am coming to the facts. These are facts which I
am submitting.
The CuarrMan. There should be no characterizations; just let us
have the facts.
Mr. Exxiorr. I have mentioned no names.
Mr. Warxins. We understand; we do not care to go into this con-
troversy.
Mr. McGuire. My cwn persons! opinion is that I would like to
have this go into the record, and I will be frank in stating my reason.
I do not agree with Dr. Elhott «t sll, and he has exhibited an uncon-
trollable feeling all through this matter, which I think makes him
entirely incompetent, and there is no better, evidence of incom-
petency than statements cf that kind. I think the Congress is en-
titled to knew who it is m: Tere the statement and giving this testi-
mony.
Mr. Warkrns. I have not made any motion to strike out it, but
I merely made a suggestion that it was extreme.
Mr. McGutre. I think you are correct about the statement being
extreme, and that is one reason I thought it should go into the record.
Mr. Warxins. I withdraw my objection.
The CuarrMan. We will let this go in, but the witness will have
to be cautioned that he shall submit facts and nothing else.
Mr. Exuiorr. I am going to submit the facts that a man called a
“ag has charged me with being the head of a pelagic sealing
obby
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 7
The CuarrmMan. If anybody has made that charge
Mr. Exxiotr (interposing). That is in the hearings, sworn to and
not denied. It is a matter of fact that a man called a “scientist’’
has written a libel on me which was used on the floor of the House,
charging me with an infamous offense.
The CHarRMAN. You are asked to submit the facts. Please pro-
ceed.
Mr. EviotrT (reading) :
This is the personal equation of which I have spoken and which you gentlemen
of the committee should understand before I go into the following details. Those
critics have studied to deceive this committee, and the public in order that the im-
proper and ruinous work of the private interests, or lessees, should not be checked up,
and entirely abolished. :
Mr. Warxrns. Is it not the idea that we will stand responsible
for any statement of that kind that he makes in this hearing—that
is not a part of his official report ?
Mr. Exxrorr. No; this is a personal equation, which I wanted to
explain before I go into the details of this matter. _ :
Mr. McGurre. In other words, the doctor is giving us the vin-
dictive part of the matter.
Mr. EvxrotT (reading):
Fortunately for the public interests involved, and most fortunately for my good
name and credit, when I went up to the seal islands in 1872 I went fee and unbiased.
I knew nothing about that life I was to see for the first time and study. No ‘‘dis-
tinguished and astute” lawyers were busy asking me to prepare ‘‘evidence” to sus-
tain their framework of a ‘‘case”; no lying ‘‘diplomats” were seeking to gain by my
work; no greedy, lawless lessees were threatening me with “‘removal” and “‘dis-
missal” from the islands if I failed to meet their wishes.
Nothing of the kind was in my sight, or my hearing, or my knowledge from start
to finish of my study of this herd, 1872-1876. Therefore, gentlemen, you observe
that I enjoyed unusual advantages, and I used them.
I landed on St. Paul Island April 21, 1872. I was there full two weeks before the
very first seals arrived for the season right ahead.
From the hour of the arrival of the first seal bulls in May up to the departure of the
vast herd in November following, I followed every movement daily of its organization.
I was on the rookeries with my notebooks (and there nights, too). I jotted down in
them those hourly occurrences which I saw there; I placed the localities of these
occurrences, the time thereof, and date upon every one. Again in 1873 I went all
over the grounds, as I had in 1872. I made a final round-up of allthese notes. Again
during the breeding season of 1874; then in 1876 I made a second final round-up of all
these notes and in 1882 published my elaboration and systematic finish of them.
I did all this hard work of earnest survey and investigation because I coveted the
credit and honor which always comes to him who does anything well among his fellow
men. It lives aiter his death, to his everlasting good name. Nothing else does.
With this experience and that knowledge of the Pribilof fur-seal
herd, Mr. Chairman, I started for the seal islands to carry out your
instructions.
Mr. Warxins. Give us the date, please ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I have it here in the report.
Mr. Warxins. That is all right.
Mr. Ex.icrr. You first charged me to gain as near an accurate
estimate or count of the seal herd as we could find. That we did,
-Iay associate, Mr. Gallagher and myself, and before I start in to
describe that I want to call your attention to what I mean by
“rookeries” and ‘‘hauling grounds,” so that you will not misunder-
stand me as we go along.
This [exhibiting] is a sketch map from my survey of the island
made in 1872, and published in my monograph of 1882, and on which I
8 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
located for the first time in the whole history of this herd, the areas
of the rookeries and their locations, down to square feet. These red
spots [indicating] are the rookeries, or breeding grounds, upon which
ih old bulls and females breed. Inside of those breeding grounds
no young bull under 6 years of age is ever allowed to stay by the
old bulls. Therefore, they haul in back and outside of these rook-
eries, in between them, and over ground which we call the ‘“‘hauling
grounds.” The space occupied by these breeding seals is much
smaller, because they have no regular order of concentration, but
move around, and they wipe off every vestige of vegetation from those
places of hauling. They occupied about 3,200 acres, while the breed-
ing seals only occupied 144 acres in 1872. As I come to speak of the
‘hauling grounds” and the ‘rookeries” you will now have a clearer
and better understanding of what I mean. There is some confusion
in the mind of a person who has never been there, between the non-
breeding and the breeding seals, and the ‘‘hauling grounds” and the
‘‘rookeries.”’
It was important that we should get there at the “height of the
season,’’ when there would be the greatest number to be seen at an
one: time in the year, and thet is between the 10th and 20th of July.
We arrived there on the 8th of July and looked into every harem
on every rookery of the two islands and made as close an estimate and
count as any man with common sense could make. Our conclusions
are tabulated on page 5 of our report, thus: Breeding bulls, 1,550;
cows, 80,000; and pups born, 70,000; total, 151,550. Then came the
question of how many nonbreeding seals there were on the
Mr. Watkins (interposing). Does your report show the compara-
tive number now and a few years ago, when you first went there ?
Mr. Exxriorr. Yes; it is allin detail. Then came this troublesome
question of estimating—because it is impossible to count them, or
even see all of them—the nonbreeding seals. ‘The best we could do
was to make an estimate based upon what the birth rate of last year
must have been of pups, and then allowing 50 per cent loss as the
maximum or 30 per cent as the minimum coming back as “ yearlings,”
would have brought 30,000 yearlings; then adding 6,000 2-year-olds,
3,000 3-year-olds, and 400 4-year-olds, makes a grand total of bulls,
cows, and pups for the season of 1913 of 190,950. In 1874 the grand
total was 4,700,000; in 1890, when I made my second survey, the
erand total was 1,020,000; and this year it is 190,950.
The CuarrmMan. Can you tell what it ws in 1910, when the Gov-
ernment commenced to do the business ?
Mr. Exziotr. Well, we had a series of official census tables, which
declared that in 1910 there were only 137,000, which shows that that
was entirely inaccurate. There are 190,000 there this year, and I go
into full discussion of that and show why these erroneous tables were
sprung upon the committee—namely, that they started with Dr. Jor-
dan’s census of 1896 and 1897, in which he said, at the close of 1897
there were only 376,000 seals there, when, in faci, there must have
been a million.
Mr. McGuire. You testified before the committee during the hear-
ings and gave an estimate as to the number that there must be there.
What was your statement ?
Mr Ex.iorr. Taking their figures of 1904 as a starter, I said I
could form no sensible conclusion, for if their figures were correct
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 9
there would not be a seal there by 1907 or 1908. (See pp. 605, 606,
Hearing No. 10.)
Mr. McGutre. I thought you estimated about 50,000.
Mr. Exxiorr. I assumed there were that many breeding cows.
Mr. McG@tree. Did you not give that testimony ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; I did not know; I had to assume they were
there. (See pp. 1004-1012, Hearing No. 14.)
Mr. McGuire. You took the figures of these men whose judgment
and knowledge you thought so little of ?
Mr. Exxiott. I had to do it.
Mr. McGurre. For your basis in making an estimate?
Mr. Exxtiotr. Yes; I had to; I could not dispute Dr. Jordan’s
figures until I got up there this year; but I never have assumed that
he started right. If he started right then these other censuses, based
on his
Mr. McGuire (interposing). The facts are that you did not know
whether his figures were right, but now you assume, because there are
more seals than you thought there ought to be, that he must have
been wrong ?
Mr. Exiiotr. But I did not know exactly about it.
Mr. McGuire. The opinion of the agents of the Government was
that they were increasing, but you said they were not.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; they did not say they were increasing.
Mr. McGuire. Yes; they said that they were increasing.
Mr. Exxuiott. That was in 1912.
Mr. McGuire. Well, their testimony will show. My recollection
is that they said they were increasing.
Mr. Erxiorr. That was last year, 1912. They suddenly doubled
their figures of 1911.
_ Mr. McGuire. You mean by that that they said they were increas-
ing ?
Mr. Exiiorr. But how could they be increasing when the killing
was kept up during 1911?
Mr. McGuire. What a minute, please; that is your statement.
Mr. Exxiotr. That is their statement.
Mr. McGuire. My recollection is that you said that if their figures
were correct there were as many seals there as they said.
Mr. Exxiotr. ‘Correct ?”
Mr. McGurre. That is all.
Mr. Exiiorr. That is right, but their figures were not correct,
because there could not have been, with their census closing on the
Ist of August, 1911, 127,745. (See p. 367, Hearing No. 9.)
Mr. McGuire. Yes; but that is your conclusion.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, how could they:
Mr. McGuire (interposing). But as to that, all the rest differ
with you.
Mr. Exxiorr (continuing). But how could they increase when they
were killing right up to the Ist of August, 1911, and the pelagic fleet
kept right at work until December 15th of that year?
r. McGuire. But you do not know anything about that.
Mr. Exuiorr. I know that they did not double, because seals do not
double that way, and I know something about the law of life that
governs their increasing and decreasing. They could not double in
numbers during that year; it was a physical impossibility.
10 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. I say that is your judgment. Go ahead with your
statement.
Mr. Exxiotr. That is afact. Passing now from that census, which
I have described in detail here (every step of my census of 1872, every
step of my census of 1874, and every step of my census of 1890 is
detailed in this report), we come to another point of investigation.
When we landed on St. Paul Island July 8 last, one of our first
steps in looking into the conduct of public affairs on the islands was
to ask the agents of the Bureau of Fisheries to give us their daily
journals and official records (the ‘‘log books”’) from 1890 to date.
They were brought to us, and we examined them. We found officially
entered and recorded in them a specific order of the Treasury Depart-
ment, dated May 14, 1896, issued by Secretary John G. Carlisle
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What page is that on?
Mr. Extiorr. It is on pages 75 and 76—an official order issued
through Secretary John G. Carlisle, in which the killing of ‘‘yearlings
and seals whose skins weighed less than 6 pounds’’ was prohibited.
This order was put upon the books of the agents in charge of the
islands and published there before the killing began on June 17, 1896;
but we find by the records of the London sales that out of the 30,000
that were killed that year over 8,000 of them were yearlings or seals
whose skins weighed less than 6 pounds, if properly taken.
Mr. Watkins. What evidence have you?
Mr. Exriotr. I have offered it all in here.
Mr. Watkins. I know, but what evidence have you that they came
from that particular section of the country ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Why, it is all certified here; even the daily killings
are put in here, and everything is covered in detail. )
Mr. McGuire. You know that all of the authorities differ from you
on that statement, do you not?
Mr. Exuiorr. I have heard them each year, and you heard them
say why they diffcr from me.
Mr. McGuire. They all differ from you, and you have had no one
to corroborate you.
Mr. Exxiiorr. No one to corroborate me ?
Mr. McGuire. No one.
Mr. Exxiorr. Why do I want anybody to corroborate a fact ?
Mr. McGuire. I am inclined to think you are right about that.
Mr. Exvxiorr. Give me a fact and I care nothing for the thousands
who may dispute it.
Mr. McGuire. I think that is true.
Mr. Exriorr. It is nothing to me at all—that is, whether they
differ with me.
The CHAIRMAN. Your statement is to the effect that with these
regulations of Secretary Carlisle on the records, and known to these
men, that they should not kill a seal whose skin weighed less than 6
pounds, they killed 8,000 in violation of those regulations ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMANn. In 18962
Mr. Exxiorr. Immediately following the publication of that order
which prohibited that killing.
The CHarrMAN. How do you know that?
Mr. Exxiorr. By the record of sales in London, which shows that
out of 30,000 skins sent there that year .
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. iae
Mr. WaTKEINS (interposing). Was it shown that they came from
that territory ?
Mr. Extiotrr. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMan. Who is responsible for the killing of 8,000 seals in
violation of that order, issued in 1896?
Mr. Exxiort. I think the officials of the Government in charge at
that time.
The CHarrMAN. Well, mention the names, if you know of anybody.
Mr. Extiotr. Well, I describe it in detail here, beginning with Dr.
Jordan in 1896 and ending with Williams and I. Stanley Brown in
1890-91 and Lembkey in 1909-10.
The CHarRMAN. Describe it to the committee.
Mr. Warxins. You are sworn, and we are taking your evidence.
Mr. Evxiottr. I am making a sworn statement.
Mr. Watkins. What we want to know is what you now state under
oath with reference to it.
Mr. Exziort. | will state all of this detail in my report under oath.
I wish to put my report in, under oath, to save the asking of all these
questions, because the details are all there which the gentleman is
asking for, and his questions would indicate that he has evidently
not seen the report.
Mr. Warxins. I have not.
Mr. Exxiorr. Then I begin to understand why you ask these
questions and J wish to have this put in, under oath, as my state-
ment; that is, my report.
The CHarrMan. That will go in, but I take it for granted——
Mr. Exxiort (interposing). I have got all the details in here, on
pages 75-84, inclusive, of my report under “ Exhibit B.”
Mr. Warxins. But his report is not to be incorporated in the
stenographer’s report.
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. Warxrins. Because it is already in print.
The CHarrMAN. What I wish to ask you is this: Who was the
special agent of the Government on the seal islands in 1896?
Mr. Exrrotr. In 1896 the special agent of the Government in
charge of the seal islands was one J. B. Crowley, who was placed under
Dr. D. S. Jordan, by supplementary orders. Crowley entered this
May 14, 1896—Secretary Carlisle’s—order of the department on June
17 followmg, but Dr. Jordan came up soon after, and took charge of
the whole killing. J. Stanley-Brown was the agent of the lessees,
and the two men cooperated together. Then Dr. Jordan sent a:
report to the Treasury Department in which he said no yearlings
were killed that year.
The CuarrmMan. All of that is mentioned in your report ?
Mr. Extrorr. It is all in here. He knew what a yearling seal was,
and he knew that they killed 8,000 yearlings that year.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman, there are gentlemen here who were
not members of the committee at the time of the previous hearings,
and probably they want to hear this in detail, but these details were
all gone into some time ago.
The CuarrmMan. You mean the hearings in the last Congress?
Mr. McGurre. Yes.
The Cuarrman. But we did not-know anything about these regula-
tions being on record up there. That was news to me.
12 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiorr. They were suppressed from the committee.
Mr. McGuire. I do not knew anything about the records up there,
but we have in the testimony details as to the killing of seals. The
department officials and scientists were brought here as to these
measurements, and from that testimony Mr. Elhott reached his con-
clusion that they were yearlings. But they all differed from Mr.
Elliott. Now, personally I understand this to be just a recapitulation
of the testimony that we have already received except as to these
records about which he speaks. While I do care about the records,
I do not care to go over this again; I know his testimony, and know
the testimony of all the rest of them.
The CHarrMAN. [ do not think he went into this; I never heard
who was responsible for the killing of these young seals and whether
there was an order from Secretary Carlisle on record when this was
done, and if that is the case it brings us back to this: I would like to
know who is responsible for killing seals in violation of Treasury
orders, whether they were the lessees, the Government agents, or
anybody else. I consider that the entire combination is responsible
to the Government if that fact is true.
Mr. McGurre. Certainly, but here is my position: That if Mr
Elliott is permitted to recapitulate this for the sake of emphasis
The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no.
Mr. McGuire. That it would be proper to call persons who were
more competent than he and who were in charge, and all that sort of
thing, in order to determine whether any order of the Treasury
Department was violated. Now, my position is that the preponder-
ance of testimony is against Mr. Elliott; that is my position. The
chairman may feel different about it, but the thing that seems unfair
to Dr. David Starr Jordan, whom we all respect as one of the eminent
men of the country, is to allow some statements to go in the record
that might require his attendance or do him an injustice, and the same
is true of the officials of the department, and I also doubt whether
we want to go back and go over these hearings again.
The CHarrMAN. I never heard that David Starr Jordan was to be
held responsible for the unlawful killing of seals as a matter of vio-
lating Secretary Carlisle’s order, and if it can be shown that he was on
the islands and did order the killing of seals in violation of the regula-
tions, we certainly ought to know it, and then Dr. Jordan can come
here or stay in California, as he pleases. However, what I would
like to ask Mr. Elliott is this: What facts can you submit to show that
he is responsible for that ?
Mr. Extiorr. They are all in this report, in complete, authentic
detail.
The CHAIRMAN. Explain it to the committee.
Mr. Exuiotr. I have. I have said that he had full knowledge of
those regulations, because they were published on the islands a week
before he got there. He came up with swpp aaa orders, gov-
erned everything, and took full authority. e had absolute control
of the killing, and then he reported to the Treasury Department, on
November 1, 1896, that 30,000 seals were killed during that year;
that 20,000 of them were 3-year-olds, and that the balance were
large 2-year-olds, when in fact not over 7,500 of them were 3-year-
olds and eight thousand and odd—taking Lembkey’s testimony,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 18
13,000 of them—were yearlings; but I say 8,000 to be safe and sure
that I have got him.
Mr. McGuire. Do you say that Lembkey’s statement was that
there were 13,000 of them yearlings ?
Mr. Extiorr. Lembkey’s statement of the length of a yearling
skin was
Mr. McGurreE (interposing). You just stated that Lembkey stated
that 13,000 of them were yearlings. Did you or did you not say
that ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I mean, Lembkey—what I said I am not sure about—
but I mean I had this in mind, that Lembkey’s statement before this
committee was that a yearling sealskin was 364 inches long, and,
taking his statement as my guide, over 13,000 of them were not over
364 inches long of this 30,000.
Mr. McGuire. As a matter of fact, where you differ from all these
other gentlemen is on your computation as to the measurement of
skins, weights, ete. ?
Mr. Exxiotr. There is no computation about it, it is a fact; they
are so long and so wide.
Mr. McGutre. I know; but your difference with the gentlemen is:
as to the measurements and weights ?
Mr. Exxiorr. But your scientists came before this committee, and
said they did not know anything about it; not one knew anything
about it; but Lembkey did.
Mr. McGuire. They did not say that.
Mr. Exxiorr. They did say that.
Mr. McGuire. Well, they did not.
Mr. Exxiorr. They said that before the committee, and you have
got their testimony to the effect that not one knows a thing about a
yearling seal.
Mr. McGuire. That is your contention.
Mr. Exxiorr. It is in the testimony; just look at their testimony.
Mr. McGuire. I have looked at it, and you differ from them; that
is all there is to it.
Mr. Exxiotrr. I inquired of them and they could not say; they
declared they did not know what a yearling seal was, and that is in
the record here.
Mr. McGuire. Well, if it is in the record that is all there is to it.
The CuarrmMan. My recollection of that is this: That I asked these
men to come here at the suggestion of Secretary Nagel and they came,
and they said they did not remember anything about it; that is my |
recollection of it. I may be mistaken, but we will look at the testi-
mony in the hearings.
Mr. McGutre. If you remember, he differed with them as to the
measurements and weights; that it was a question whether the fat
was left on the skins, and all that sort of thing; and they differed with
Mr. Elliott and said there were no yearlings killed. Personally I have
not followed this as closely as I might except since the Government
took charge, but after the Government took charge I did follow it very
closely. 1 am quite familiar with the testimony of those people and
I know where they differed from Mr. Elliott and where they did not
differ, and I know how many differed from him. The only reason I
object—I really am not objecting, but from what I have read of the |
testimony and the statements of Dr. Jordan, whom I regard as a man
14 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
of high character and a man of ability, I doubt whether it is doing
justice to him to let these broad and sweeping statements mto the
record without giving him a chance at least to make a statement
afterwards.
The CuarrMan. Oh, that right will be accorded him.
Mr. Exxiotr. He ought to have come before the committee as
pace as the swiftest train could bring him here when I publicly
charged him with it, more than a year ago (see Hearing No. 14, pp.
950, 951), but he did not come, and why did he not come? Because,
like every one of his associates, he did not know anything about it.
Here is Dr. Stejneger, on page 915 of Hearing No. 14, saying that
he did not know anything about the length or the weight of a year-
ling seal. Here is Dr. Merriam
‘The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Please read it.
Mr. McGuire. Let him go ahead and clear that up.
Mr. Exxrorr. I will clear that right up now. [Reading:]
The CHarrMan. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions?
Mr. Exuiorr. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. StEJNEGER. I could not tell you.
Mr. Exxrorr. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. STEIJNEGER. No.
“Mr. Exxtiorr. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling
seal as taken from the body?
Dr. STEJNEGER. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling
seal killed on the American islands.
Mr. McGuire. Have you read all of his testimony ?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes, all on that point; then it goes on to another
subject. ‘Lhat is all he states about a yearling seal in any of his
testimony,
Mr. McGurre. He does not say anything about the condition or
weight of a seal ?
Mr. Exvtiotr. Nothing; not a word.
Mr. McGuire. Do the others?
Mr. Exxtiorr. Not one of them. Now, I will come to the others.
[Reading:]
Dr. C. Hartt Merriam, member of advisory board, fur seal service, Department of
Commerce and Labor (p. 692, Hearing No. 11):
The CHarrMaNn. 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 number of the sittings of that committee, as 1am 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 CHarrMAN. Were you at the meeting of the advisory board that the previous
witness referred to in his testimony?
Dr. Merriam. I do not remember any such meeting.
The CHarrMAN. Are you a member of the board now?
Dr. Merriam. Yes.
On page 99, Hearing No. 11:
Mr. Extiorr. Doctor, while you were on the islands did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?
Dr. Merriam. I did not.
Mr. Extiorr. Do you know anything about the length and the weight of a yearling-
seal skin?
Dr. Merriam. Nothing.
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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 15
Dr. Merriam. I do not think I was present at any conference when that matter
was up.
Mr. McGuire. J remember those things.
Mr. Exttrorr. I will go through all of it since you have raised a
question about my statements.
Mr. McGurre. That is all right.
Mr. Exxiorr. Everyone said they did not know anything about a
yearling seal.
Mr. McGurre. Did net Dr. Evermann and Lembkey testify about
that?
Mr. Exziorr. Lembkey knew; he testified and I have got him.
Mr. McGutre. And so did some others, that some had not taken
measurements, but that others had.
Mr. Extiorr. No other man except Lembkey, knew anything
about it, according to this testimony. You can not find a man who
knew except Lembkey. Lembkey said a yearling skin measured 364
inches long; he knew all right, and I have got him for killing seals
whose skins only reached 34 inches long; and, to be sure that I have
got him, every one of these tabulations of yearling skins given by me
to this committee has been based on skins not exceeding 34 inches
long. Mr. Lembkey was the only man who knew, and these scientists
came here and did not know anything about it when we got them
under oath and confined them to facts; but they could go out behind
my back and ridicule me; yet, they did not know.
The CuarrMAN. That is neither here nor there. Were any skins
taken by Lembkey under 36 inches?
Mr. Extiott. He identified 7,733 skins out of 12,920, which he took
in 1910, and not one of them exceeded in length 34 inches.
The CHarrmMan. Were they skins taken in violation of the regula-
tions ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Certainly they were.
The CHarrMan. How do you know?
Mr. Exriotr. Because he himself testified that the regulations said
that no seal should be taken under two years of age, and he himself
(in Hearing No. 9, p. 372), said he was bound by those regulations.
The CuarrMan. I notice the regulation provides that no seals shall
be killed whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds.
' Mr. Exxtiorr. Yes; and then that no seals shall be taken under 2
years of age, and then they fixed a skin weight of 5 pounds to deceive
the committee.
Mr. McGuire. That is your statement and your conclusion.
Mr. Exxiorr. The records in London will show that.
The CHarrMan. Let me ask you a few questions. What were they
reporting to the Bureau of Fisheries ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Nothing but weights.
The Cuarrman. Anything as to sizes ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No.
The Cuarrman. Were they reporting them as weighing 4 pounds,
5 pounds, or 6?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes; all kinds ot pounds, up to 8 and down to 44.
Mr. Warxins. What would be the age of a seal that would give a
skin weighing 5 pounds ?
a Exiiorr. It would be a “long” yearling or a “short” 2-year-
old.
16 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. McGuire. That is another proposition on which you differ.
The CuarrMan. Let me ask you whether the skins were reported
by Lembkey and his agents by weights and not by sizes?
Mr. Exxrorr. Not by sizes, but by weights; but they are all classi-
fied in London by sizes, by measurements.
The CaairMAN. What does the London classification show as to
these 7,700 that you just mentioned ?
Mr. Exxiorr. It shows that not one of them exceeded in length—
not one of them was more than 334 inches long. .
Mr. Watrins. Did it show anything about the weights?
Mr. Exxiotr. The weights were put down, and I am going to bring
that in.
The CuarrMAN. But the London people did not go by weights?
Mr. Evuiorr. No.
The CuarrMan. But they reported them by weights to the Bureau
of Fisheries ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMANn. What did it show there as to
Mr. Ex.iott (interposing). It showed they were all big skins.
The CHairMAN. How did they happen to be large skins ?
Mr. Exxiotr. By putting blubber on the little skins.
The CHarrMAN. But I have always understood you to say that the
blubber did not make any difference.
Mr. Exxiorr. I said it does increase the weight; that is, according
to the blubber and salt used.
Mr. McGuire. We have those London sheets here.
Mr. Evxiorr. Yes; we have them right in the testimony.
The CuarrMAN. I wish to say that I] have made it a pomt to look
into that matter and J found that it is the best way to determine the
ages of these seals, or as to whether they were killing undersized seals,
and I found out how they had been making their reports as to the
killing of seals to the Bureau of Fisheries by reporting so many skins
that weighed, we will say, 6 pounds and 6 ounces, and so many other
skins as weighing 7 pounds and 8 ounces, and so on, but never by size.
Then, when the bureau sells the skins in London, they find out that
skins that have been marked here as weighing about the same vary
in size. When the blubber is taken out, one skin is found to be a
large one and another skin is found to be a small one, while, according
to the report to the Bureau of Fisheries, it is made to appear that, so
far as the weights are concerned, they are of the same size. When
the skins are tested in London as to size, it will be found that a certain
skin was taken from a small seal, although a person looking at the
report in the bureau would suppose that the skin was taken from a
seal between 2 and 3 years old. You see, they leave the blubber on
the skin, thereby adding to its weight, and the record here would
indicate that it was taken from a seal between 2 and 3 years old.
The record here would show that the skin weighed over 5 pounds
so as to conform to the regulations. Now, if that is so, it looks to me
like a deliberate attempt to make the skins appear as though they
were taken from large seals, when, as a matter of fact, they are small
skins and their weight is increased by reason of the blubber being
left on them. Is that the result of your investigation ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 17
Mr. Ex.tiorr. You are entirely correct, Mr. Chairman, in your
conclusions. It has been their regular practice; and, I give all the
details of it in this report.
Mr. McGuire. Have you any authority for that except this docu-
ment? Is there any evidence or testimony given by anybody under
oath as to that?
The CuarrMan. I only meant to state in a general way what I had
investigated and what was the result of my looking into the matter.
It appears that these skins were reported by weight, but when, for
instance, two skins were received in London, each weighing, say,
6 pounds and 8 ounces, according to the reports made to the bureau,
yet, when the blubber was scraped off of them in London
Mr. Ex.xiotrr (interposing). When they put the measurements on,
Mr. Chairman. They put the measurements right on.
The CuarrMAN. When they get rid of the blubber, they will find
that one is a small skin and the other is a large skin, notwithstanding
the fact that their weights were reported as the same.
Mr. McGuire. The reason [| asked the question was that my recol-
lection of the testimony of the witnesses is different. (f course I
have made no investigation such as you have. The testimony was
to the effect that they reported to the department by weizht and that
the parties to whom the Government sold the skins in England bought
them by measurement ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And the tables of the measurements are on file here.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And the dispute has been as to the measurements;
that is, the contention has been made that a skin might vary from
_ two-eighths to five-eighths of an inch in size, depending upon where
the skin was cut from behind or from the head and tail. I think they
said there was a variation of from two-eighths to five-eighths of an
inch, which showed that it was unsafe to go by measurement. As I
understood the testimony here, that is where all of this difficulty
came from. Witnesses have differed, and I think they differed from
you on the question of the effect produced on the skins after they
had been salted, some contending that salt would take out the juices
and make the skins lighter and others contending that the effect of
salt was to make the skins heavier; that is, that they could not
extract it
Mr. Warxkrns (interposing). Would not the application of salt add
to the weight of a skin ?
Mr. McGurre. Yes, sir; but the question was whether, after
shaking and extracting the salt from the skins, it did not eliminate
juices from the blubber, and thus make the skin lighter. All that
is in the evidence, and there was a contention about it, the doctor
here contending that the salt could not be extracted and that you
could not take it out, while others, testifying from actual experience
in the matter, contended that the salt causes the juices to exude
from the skins, thus making them lighter. You will find that all
through the evidence. Is that your recollection, Mr. Chairman ?
The Cuarrman. My recollection of the evidence is that salting
makes very little difference one way or the other.
Mr. McGurrz. Makes very little difference ?
53490—14—_2,
18 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Exxiotr. It makes a difference of from one-fourth to one-half
a pound in weight. I testified to that effect, and everybody opposed
me
Mr. McGurre. My recollection wa
Mr. Extiotr (interposing). They all opposed me, but I alone
brought in proof of my statement. I will read from our report
(p. 112) what was done in 1904:
Lembkey tells the truth in 1904, and records the fact that salting sealskins increases
their weight.
Chief Special Agent Lembkey makes the following entry on page 149 of the journal
of the Government agent on St. Paul Island, Alaska, 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 kench and reweighed.
At the time of killing they weighed 705 pounds, and on being taken out they
weighed 7594 pounds, a gain in salting of 544 pounds, or one-half pound per skin.
A true copy, made July 22, 1913.
Attest: Henry W. EL.iort,
A. F. GALLAGHER.
Agents House Commitiee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.
But Lembkey falls from truth above—falls hard. (Hearing No. 9, pp.446, Apr. 12,
1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
Mr. Extiorr. Mr. Lembkey, you say you never have weighed these skins after you
have salted them? You have never weighed them?
Mr. Lempxey. IJ have never weighed them after the salting on the islands; no, sir.
There is one of your authorities that impressed you, Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. | do not see that it makes any change
Mr. Extiotr (interposing). It does make a change of one-half a
pound perskin of increase inweight. In Hearing No.9, pages445—446,
April 13, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department
of Commerce and Labor, Mr. Lembkey goes on to say, ‘‘All our
experiments show that the salting of skins slightly decrease the
weight.”
.The CuarrmMan. That was my recollection.
Mr. Exxiorr. That was what the officials of the Bureau of Fisheries
said, and here is their chief authority. The only practical man who
has handled thousands and tens of thousands of skins, says that it
does increase the weight.
Mr. McGuire. Are you talking about Mr. Lembkey, Doctor?
Mr. Extiortr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And he says it does increase the weight ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir; there was a gain in salting of 54% pounds,
or one-half pound per skin.
Mr. McGuire. Upon that question, if I remember the testimony
correctly, it brought in the element of time, and the question of how
much of the salt could be extracted. Now, I do not catch anything
there in that testimony that would affect anything except the present
time. Of course, it would increase the weight when first applied,
but after the salt has had time to work out its effect upon the skin,
after the chemical processes that go on have been completed, then,
when you extract the salt, these juices are eliminated. You do not
take this element of time into account.
Mr. Exurotr. The element of time comes in with the British report.
Here is their report. Let me read from page 113 of the report:
Mr. Extiotr. Now, in Senate Executive Document No. 177, Fifty-third Congress
second session, pages 117 and 118 (S. Ex. Doc. 177, pt. 7), counter case of the Uni
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 19
States, on page 118, the United States commissioners, Merriam and Mendenhall, have
this to say touching the salted weights:
The British commissioners further rely upon Mr. Elliott’s statement that skins
weigh from 54 pounds to 12 pounds (sec. 672), and upon the comparison of such state-
ment with that of Lieut. Maynard, an independent observer, who gives the average
weight of bundles as 22 pounds and the weight of the largest as 64 pounds (sec. 672);
this appears to the commissioners to require some explanation (sec. 673). The impli-
cation is evident, and the United States offer the explanation in vindication of the
officers of the Government who are thus charged. A bundle contains not only the
two skins proper, but salt and blubber with which they are packed for their preserva-
tion. This naturally adds greatly to the weight, as does also the moisture collected
by the salt and fur.
That sustains me completely about the increased weight of ‘‘green’’ skins after they
are cured on the islands, and our Government carried that claim as a voucher to Paris.
It was never disputed by either side at those sessions of the bering Sea Tribunal, held
there from April to August, 1893.
The CHAIRMAN. It is 12 o’clock, and I think we will adjourn now.
Mr. McGuire. In case Mr. Elliott is to make any more statements,
I think Dr. Evermann and Mr. Lembkey should be subpcenaed.
The CuarrMan. Well, bring them in here; that is all right, but I
do not care to subpena anybody.
Mr. Jones. Dr. Evermann is out West, and he probably will not
be at home until about November 1. He probably will not be here
until then, unless you wish him to appear. I do not know where
Mr. Lembkey is now.
Mr. ALLEN. He is in the city, or was a few days ago.
The CHarrMANn. It is my desire to allow everybody to come in now
if they wish to hear what is going on. I wish to say this, that so far
as I am concerned, though not speaking for the committee, it looks
to me as if blubber had been added to the skins to increase the
weight of skins taken from small seals that were killed on the islands,
and I would like to have that cleared up. If the skin taken from a
small seal is blubbered to the extent of about 2 or 24 pounds, and it
is reported by our agent on the island to weigh as much as the skin
taken from a seal that is much larger than that in order to bring it
within the regulations, I think this committee and Congress ought to
know it, and if that is done, I have no doubt the lessees on those
islands should be held responsible.
Mr. McGurre. I do not want to be misunderstood, but up to date
from the hearings before the committee—I do not know what the
outside information is—I differ from the chairman as to the amount
of blubber that has been taken from the seals for the purpose of add-
ing to the weight of the skins. There are various reasons for that
view. In the first place, there is no occasion for it, because, after the
Government took charge of the business, nobody could get anything
out of it. Now, as to what occurred prior to that time, I have not
gone into very extensively, but I never thought that a good reason.
But I differ apparently from the chairman and from the testimony
now given on the question of whether an unnecessary amount of
blubber is left on the skins. I a!so differ from the doctor and from
the chairman on the question of how many, if any, yearlings were
taken. Now, the reason why I thought these parties ought to be
heard, if the doctor is to run over this question of measurements again,
is because it is evident that they all differ from him, and, to be frank
about it, I think the doctor exhibited a good deal of animosity, and
I think they did, too, or some of them did. I think Dr. Jordan is too ©
20 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
big a man to be affected by this matter, and, I think, the rest of them
are. While the testimony of some of the witnesses was more com-
plete than that of others, it always occurred to me that the burden
of the testimony largely was that this was a fight by the doctor here
on some scientific men and on some parties in the department.
Now, if there is other testimony outside that has not come in, that
there was blubber left on the skins, and if I am wrong about it, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to know it.
Mr. Evxiotr. The evidence is right before you.
The CHarrMAN. Your testimony, Mr. Elliott, will likely be con-
tinued, and I wish you would go over that proposition and submit
it to the committee. I will ask you to do that.
Mr. Extiott. It is all set forth here in detail
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). But we want it in these hearings. If
there is any testimony bearing on this proposition
Mr. Exviort (interposing). It is all here.
The CHAIRMAN (continuing). I want you to submit it to the com-
mittee.
Mr. Exxiotr. It has been submitted here In my report just sub-
mitted to you, under oath. I can not see how any more evidence
could be submitted than the 400 loaded skins and unloaded skins, all
weighed and measured in public on the islands and certified to.
The CHatRMAN. That is this case?
Mr. McGuire. That was this summer ?
Mr. Exxtiotr. Right now. It has been done that way since 1896.
The CnatrrMan. The skins have been blubbered, and small skins,
measuring, perhaps, 34 inches, weigh as much as skins measuring
39 inches or more.
Mr. McGuire. Was that done this summer ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. These parties, then, are not responsible for what
was done this year.
Mr. Warxins. During this session of the committee a remark has
been made, going to indicate that the witness had some animosity and
that he had displayed a good deal of feeling in his statements. Now,
if that statement goes into the record I would like to express the view
that, while he has shown considerable feeling, it is due, in my opinion,
largely to the fact that he is trying to defend himself against attacks
made on him and not on account of any animosity he feels toward
other people.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is entirely so, and I thank you for that state-
ment.
The CHarrMan. The fact is that I would say the same thing of the
other men who have appeared here—that is, that they have shown
feeling.
Mr. McGuire. It seems to be a quarrel.
Mr. Exxiorr. I object to that statement; it is not a quarrel; it is
no quarrel at all, and I object to your statement.
Mr. McGurre. Do not say anything further to me now.
(Thereupon, at 12.10 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned sub-
ject to the call of the chairman.) ¥
o
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 2]
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Housr or REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, January 17, 1914.
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rother-
mel (chairman) presiding.
Present: Hon. John H. Rothermel, Hon. John H. Stephens, Hon.
John T. Watkins, and Hon. Allan B. Walsh.
The CHarRMAN. The committee will come to order. There is a
quorum present, and we will proceed.
Mr. StepHeEns. Mr. Chairman, this committee, on June 20, 1913,
appointed Henry W. Elhott and Andrew F. Gallagher as its agents
to report upon the condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and the
conduct of the public business on the Pribilof Islands; on August
31, 1913, they reported to the chairman of this committee as follows:
THE REPORT
OF THE SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UPON
THE CONDITION OF THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA AND
THE CONDUCT OF THE PUBLIC BUSINESS ON THE PRIBILOF
ISLANDS, AS ORDERED BY THE COMMITTEE JUNE 20, 1913,
AND MADE BY THE SAID AGENTS AUGUST 31, 1913, TO THE
CHAIRMAN, HON. J. H. ROTHERMEL, BY HENRY W. ELLIOTT
AND ANDREW F. GALLAGHER, AGENTS OF COMMITTEE
23
FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Hovust oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., June 20, 1913.
The committee met at 10.30 a m., Hon. John H. Rothermel,
chaiman, presiding.
Present: Hon. John H. Stevens, Hon. John T. Watkins, and Hon.
Charles E. Patton.
The Cuarrman. The meeting this morning is called for the purpose
of organizing the committee and for the purpose of submitting
ae piopemven of engaging certain persons to visit the Pribilof
slands
On motion of Hon. John H. Stevens, the chairman was authorized
to select a clerk of the committee.
On motion of Hon. John T. Watkins, the dacs resolution was
adopted:
Ordered, That Henry W. Elliott is hereby aanomtedy as a duly qualified expert to
gather certain information touching the conduct of public affairs on the seal islands
of Alaska as the chairman of the committee shall require, and tkat Andrew F. Gal-
lagher is hereby appointed as a duly qualified expert stenographer and notary to
accompany Mr. Elhott and record the details of that information as it shall be devel-
oped under the instructions of the chairman.
On the adoption of the resolution the vote was as follows:
Ayes, Hon. John H. Stevens and Hon. John T. Watkins; noes,
Hon. Charles E. Patton.
There was no further business to transact, consequently the com-
mittee adjourned at 11.10 a. m. to reconvene at the call of the
chairman.
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL AGENTS.
Wasuineton, D.C., August 31, 1913.
Hon. Joun H. RorHERMEL,
Charman House Committee on
Expenditures in Department of Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Str: On the 21st of last June we received from your hands our
appointment as yee agents of your committee duly authorized
by its action on that day. Your letter of notice ordered us to pro-
ceed without delay to the seal islands of Alaska by the most direct
25
26 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
route and make a thorough examination into the condition of the
fur-seal herd thereon as we should find it and into all details of the
conduct of the public business thereon since May 1, 1890, up to date.
We therefore proceeded direct to Seattle, Wash., and took passage
on the Nome steamer Victoria, which sailed July 1, 3.40 p. m. ie
this vessel never stops at the seal islands, through the kindness of
the Secretary of the Treasury we were met in Onimak Pass on July
7 last and taken on board the United States revenue cutter Tahoma,
Capt. Chiswell, who landed us at St. Paul Island on July 8 last.
Agreeably to our instructions, we at once took up and finished
the following subjects of direct personal study and investigation:
I. July 10 to 20.—A personal survey was made of every one of the
17 breeding grounds or ‘“‘rookeries”’ of the fur seals on St. George
and St. Paul Islands. We looked into every harem, and made as
reasonable and accurate a count of the bulls and cows there as men
of common sense can make.! We found this herd to-day is so far
depleted from its form of 1872, and then of 1890, that the same
methods of enumeration, which must be used as they were used then,
by Mr. Elliott, when there were 4,700,000 and then later 1,000,000
seals, could not be employed; so, a careful estimate and counting of
the adult breeding seals in each harem, when they were not ‘‘massed,”’
was made by us, and it gives the followmg figures and—
(a) Has developed the fact that only a minute fraction of the
proper number of young bulls were seen on the breeding grounds,
and that the old bulls thereon were so few and far between that they
often had harems of 100 to 120 females; that the average harem
was at least 55 cows,’ instead of being 20, which is the normal number
when the herd is in its best form.
(b) This situation up there, as above stated, makes the case fairly
desperate, and it would speedily result in the complete extermination
of the male breeding life of these Pribilof preserves and ‘‘rookeries”’
if it were not for the close time now ordered by law of August 24,
1912, which forces a total suspension of all killing of young male
seals on the islands, except for the food of natives, during the next
five years.
(c) There are some 56,000 cows on the St. Paul breeding grounds
and about 16,000 on St. George, or 72,000 pupping cows this season
of 1913. To this number we may safely add some 7,000 nubiles,
making in all about 80,000 cows for this year of 1913. The 72,000
pups of 1913 (less about 2 per cent death rate for natural causes), or
70,000 pups in round numbers, and some 1,400 old bulls, with less
1 We gave the subject of the “counting” of “live pups” with a view to getting a fair idea of its sense
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 prohibited as idle and positively detrimental. The unanimous objection of the
natives to this job of ‘‘counting”’ live pups as one of the chief causes of injury to the herd is expressed in
detail. (See Exhibit E postea.)
That the men who have officially done this work of “counting live’ pups for an “accurate” census
since 1901 to date do not believe in it, and think it is inaccurate and should be stopped, is well exhibited
by copies of their entries made officially in the journals of St. George and St. Paul. Some of these we
submit in proof of the above, as Exhibit F postea.
2 This average is misleading, in fact, though it is the only figure which can be used, unless it is qualified
as follows: For instance, take a series of harems on the reef, between stations F and E; here there are 25;
1 bull has 200 cows, 6 bulls have each more than 100, 3 bulls have each 50, 10 bulls have from 12 to 25 cows
each, 3 bulls only 2 cows, and 2 bulls have none; thus 25 bulls, 1,136 cows, or average of 45 cows to a bull.
That is, in truth, not so. There are 10 bulls with 1,050 cows, or 100 cows each, while the other 15 bulls
have but 186 cows between them. As they do not meddle with any cows except as hauled out in their
respective harems, the average distribution of service, at 45 cows to the bull, is wholly misleading.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 27
than 150 young bulls make up the following sum total of the breeding
strength of the fur-seal herd for this season of 1913, to wit:
Old bulls (8 to 15 years RT CLs) <p Ser a Nap RE DAC ame SSS ALY Ci SS 1, 400
Mama balls: (Gstoneyearswlld) 2 Sofie 3S ET PG LL tS SOA 150
Cows, pEmipares.multiparess and nubiles: _--c<- Casi ape aloes. be. 1): 80, 000
DELETE Ae Sa ya ee are Be Semen Sa ae pe PU een oe RI) FRC eae A ee 70, 000
BBall (cee, Sarl Cn) eee enters eee rahe nw LU ORAL CAREY EAU LNT Ont Ns 151, 550 .
Then add (a vague estimate):
Reomrbani cs ( Ppa 4 P™) oats reeves sk tases eh Pe Nee sels EE EE OS ee 30, 000
EeOPEP TLS (SO) aE am Aa Sir, Pan yar eee Se ea NES xt are i 6, 000
seVEL TE DLL SA Wah) Peete es ae RATS RR am ° 2 A URL: Sh BR arm oS A 3, 000
a= (BEE CLO UCR ee ee es gee Satie ithe Eee tetas lee eC Lede ie Ca RE 400
Grand total seals (¢', 9, and o, season of 1913) -...2.-2..--222-22-2- 190, 950
Table showing the relative size of the fur-seal herd of 1913 when contrasted with its formin
1874 and 1890.1
Cows—
Old | Young {2Zbiles, pri- Grand
Years. mipares, Pups. Remarks.
bulls. | bulls. | oq muiti- total.
pares.
1874 | 90,000 | 30,000 | 1,608,040 | 1,300,000 | 3,028,040
1890 | 11,000 500 480, 000 460, 000 951,500 | Or only one-third of the 1874 herd of
breeding seals and young.
1913 1, 400 150 80, 000 70,000 151,550 | Or only one-twentieth of the 1874 herd of
breeding seals and young.
1 The nonbreeding yearlings and 2, 3, 4, and 5 year old males are not included in this table, since they
can not be reasonably estimated for (during the last 20 years); they had practically disappeared from the
island grounds when looked for in 1913.
Note.—These figures declare the fact that the decrease from 1874 to 1890 was a loss of two-thirds of this
herd’s breeding strength.
Then, they declare the fact that that decrease from 1890 to 1913
shows clearly that the herd has suffered a loss of five-sixth of its
breeding strength during this interval and is close to the verge of
complete destruction of ‘its virile male life? unless it is fully shielded
from killing on the islands and the sea for a term of years ahead.
(See detailed discussion and figures, in Exhibit A, postea.)
Il. July 21.—A careful examination was made of the official seal
island agent’s journals, or ‘‘log books,” as kept in the office of the
United States agents on St. Paul Island, from 1890 to date.
1 That serious matter of the lack of breeding bulls, or of the utter absence of surplus or young virile male
life on the rookeries, during this season of 1913, makes the following statement, given to Hon. E. W. Town-
send by George A. Clark, under date of Feb. 28, 1913, significant, since he has declared that “the condition
of the herd to-day is an ideal one.”
“STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA, February 28, 1913.
“DEAR SIR: * * * J was onthe Pribilof Islands during the season of 1896-97, under Dr. Jordan, and
participated actively in the work of investigation, in addition to having the benefit of all the training and
experience of the other members of the commission. I did the actual work of counting, and know that
there were three idle and young bulls for every bull in active service on the rookeries in those seasons.
* * * J was again on the islands in 1909, and again counted the bulls—one idle or reserve bull for each
two in service. * * * I visited the islands again last Sea (1912) and found conditions as they were
in 1909. These are facts, not conjectures and opinions. *
‘GEORGE A, CLARK.”
Every bull engaged this summer (1913) was carefully located and counted by us. We found just 1,450
30 engaged with 80,000 cows. We found less than 150 ‘‘reserve”’ or ‘‘idle”’ bulls.
Now, if George A. Clark is telling the truth to Hon. E. W. Townsend, this “reserve of one bull idle for
every two in service” during 1912 has suddenly disappeared. There is to- day actually less than one idle
or reserve bull for every nine in service.
*_ This is a sudden and a dangerous collapse of the virile breeding male life on the rookeries since 1912 if
Clark is telling the truth.
298 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
(a) This work discloses the fact that in this official journal (p. 14)
under date of June 17, 1896, is a certified copy of the order of the
Secretary of the Treasury, dated ‘‘May 14, 1896,” which prohibits
‘‘the killing of yearlings, and seals having skins weighing less than 6
pounds.” This order which was published then to the agents of the
government and the lessees, was actually violated and ignored that
very season of 1896; and also carefully suppressed from the notice
of the House: Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
Commerce and Labor by the officials of the Bureau of Fisheries when
interrogated May 31-July 30, 1911, and February 29—July 31, 1912,
as to what rules and regulations had been ordered by the depart-
ments in charge of the seal herd prior to and since 1890.1 It also
appears from a careful examination of this official journal above
cited, that no order of change to those ‘‘Carlisle rules” of May 14,
1896, has ever been made by any Secretary of the Treasury or Com-
merce and Labor, until Secretary Metcalf, in 1906, was persuaded to
make a ‘‘5-pound”’ minimum limit, and thus make it easier for the
lessees to nullify the ‘‘Hitchcock rules” of May 1, 1904, which pre-
scribed a ‘‘54-pound”’ minimum limit.
(For full details and proof of this violation by the lessees of the
regulations of 1896, up to date of 1906, see Exhibit B, postea.)
(b) It also further discloses the fact that the sealing schooner
Kate and Anna, which C. H. Townsend, of, and ‘‘expert” of, the
United States Bureau of Fisheries, and H. H. D. Pierce, as the Third
Assistant Secretary of State, vouched for as a proper claimant for
damages against Russia, in 1902, at the Hague, was, in fact, a pirate,
and busy in raiding our Pribilof herd during the summer of 1890.
(For full details see Exhibit C, postea.)
Ill. July 22.—A careful survey was made of the natives’ houses
on St. Paul and St. George and the condition of the same, as well
as other inquiries touching the same. They were found to be in
fairly good condition, requiring minor repairs only, many of them
without any need of attention. The natives, 302 of them, all told,
are fairly well provided for. (For full details see Exhibit D, postea.)
IV. July 23 to 25.—A careful examination was made of the Seal
Island natives who have killed the seals for the lessees during the
last 20 years under orders of the United States agents—the
drives, how made, the ages or classes of seals killed, etc. Their
answers were taken down, then translated to them as taken down,
and approved by them in writing after they had been read by the
interpreter to them in Aleut, which is their own language and used
by them among themselves. (For full details see Exhibit E, postea.)
V. July 29, 1913.—The salt-cured skins of 400 seals killed under
direction of United States Special Agent Lembkey, July 7, 1913,
were all carefully measured and then weighed by us July 29 follow-
ing, as they were salted and bundled for shipment to London. These
skins were all tagged and numbered by Mr. Lembkey on July 7, 1913,
1 The following sworn statement of untruth is made by the Bureau of Fisheries, to wit:
Dr. EVERMANN. * * * In answer to this charge it should be sufficient to say that the law has never
made it illegal to kill yearling male seals; nor has it ever been contrary to the regulations to kill yearling
male seals, except in the seasons of 1904 and 1905, as is shown by the regulations for the various years to
which I have called your attention. Therefore, even if 128,478 yearling male seals have been killed since
1899 (which is not admitted) they could not have been killed illegally, because there was no law against
killing yearling male seals, and there has been no regulations against killing yearling male seals, except
in 1904 to 1909. (Hearing No. 10, p. 493, Apr. 19, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 29
and their ‘‘green” weights recorded then, by him before salting on
that day. iat
We took this list of tagged skins and numbers, and measured them
for their sizes, and then reweighed them in the salt. It became clear,
as this work progressed, that the small 31-34 inch skins were so
““loaded”’ with blubber that they actually weighed as much as the
large 40-43 inch skins, which were not loaded—never loaded; so
that without these measurement checks upon them, those little
yearling skins (30-34 inch skins)—appeared in this list of “green”
weights as well as or as heavy as the large, or 40-43 inch skins.
This accounts for the fierce insistence of the officials of the Bureau
of Fisheries that their 6-pound and 7-pound skin weights were proof
of the fact that they were not “‘yearlings’’—were “2-year-o]d”’ seals.
This insistence they kept up until it was at last extorted from
them that the measurement of the skin alone declared its real size
or age. On page 446, Hearing No. 9, April 13, 1912, House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor,
the following sworn statement is made by Mr. Lembkey, who is the
same man that ordered and directed the killing and skinning of these
400 seals on July 7 last, which we handled July 29 following:
Mr. Extiotr. 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.
Mr. Extiotr. Have you ever issued any orders or heard any orders issued to have
more or less blubber taken?
Mr. LeEmpxey. Never.
Mr. Ectiorr. Is it not true that a native can skin a 44-pound skin off and add blub
ber to it so as to make 1t weight 5 pounds?
Mr. LemBxey. It certainly is.
Mr. Exxrorr. 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. Excrorr. And it would absorb more salt, would it not?
Mr. Lempxey. I think so; yes.
Mr. Exxriorr. And that would add very much to the weight of the 44-pound skin?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes; the blubber would. ;
Mr. Extiorr. All that can be done, can it not?
Mr. Lempxey. 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. Extiorr. 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 be only so long and so wide.
Mr. Extiotr. That is it.
Mr. Lempxey. And of course it would develop in the classification when the skins
would he exposed for sale.
Here Mr. Lembkey (who has directed all of the island killing of
seals for the lessees since 1899, and up to date of July 7, 1918) tells
the committee that he has never issued any orders to have more or
less blubber taken, yet here are 400 skins under our eyes which were
all taken under his personal direction, July 7 last (1913), and nearly
every small skin is “‘loaded”’ with blubber so heavily that it weighs
as much as the larger skins, which, in turn, are all ‘‘clean skinned,”
and so weigh near to their real size.”
1 See native sealers’ statements that they were told to leave blubber on these “‘small” skins. (Exhibit E,
postea.) :
_ 2 See native sealers’ statements, who say they were ordered to leave this extra blubber on “small” skins
in 1396, and have done so up to date, (Exhibit E, postea.)
30 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
This orderly ‘‘loading”’ of every small skin and ‘‘unloading” of
every large skin, so as to make them weigh all as large skins, is a
mere accident, is it? No.t (The details of this exposure of that
“loading”’ of the “‘eyeplaster’’ 30-34 inch skins, so as to make them
weigh into the real weights of the 2 and 3 year old or “‘ prime ” skins,
are furnished in full by the Exhibit F, which follows:) e
This public measurement and weighing of those salted skins also
shows clearly and indisputably that the British and American con-
tention that ‘‘salting increases the weight of the ‘green’ or fresh-
taken skins’”’ is right; that it does not send them lighter, when so
salted, to London than when ‘‘green’”’ and first put into salt; and
still further, this record as put out in Exhibit F, postea, fully bears
out the following testimony as given in hearing No. 1, page 14, House
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and
Labor, May 31, 1911:
Mr. Exttorr. 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 classification and
what he says as compared with our tables, but I will read one word from a chief Brit-
ish authority in an official letter written December 21, 1892, by Sir Curtis Lampson’s
sons to the British commissioners, Sir George Baden-Powell and Dr. George M. Daw-
son. 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
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. (See p. 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 5} 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 to Mr. Nagel’s books as a skin ‘‘not under 2 years of
age,’’ because 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.
I have seen ‘‘runts” that would not weigh 5 pounds; but we are not dealing with ex-
ceptions. We are dealing with broad, square averages. I am willing to admit that a
few exceptions can be found.. I am 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. McGuuicuppy. Professor, these classifications here are before they are salted?
Mr. Exsiorr. Yes, sir; they are “green”’ skins.
Mr. McGruuicuppy. Just as they are taken from the body?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; and the London classifications are of salted skins.
1 The sworn statements of United States Commissioner of Fisheries Bowers and Chief Special Agent
Lembkey, as below, that these ‘“‘loaded”’ skins are classified and sold by weight (which are and were made
to deceive the committee), to wit:
Mr. LEMBKEY. These skins which were sent to London during the years 1909 and 1910 were weighed
by the factors after their arrival in London and the weights found to correspond with those taken on the
island. As this factor, Lampson & Co., is 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 there-
for, their verification of these weights may be taken as conclusive of their accuracy.
So far, therefore, as concerns compliance with the regulations and the law in the killing of male seals, no
malfeasance can be proven, because not only the records 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 department have been complie with as closely as it is possible for
human agency todoso. The weights of skins taken on the islands show this, and furthermore these
weights have been verified in London by an independent and responsible body of men. (Hearing No. 9.
pp. 874-875, Apr. 18, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.
Mr. Patton. You mean it is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the selling in London?
Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the skins for the United
States Government.
Mr. Patton. And they pay on that weight?
Mr. Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those weights.
Mr. ELLiott. Right there I want tointerpose the statement that they do not weigh those skins to classify
them. They measure them. Be aac | No. 6, p. 291, July 27, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in
the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 381
VI. July 30-31.—The subject of the best and most economic plan
or system of purchasing and distributing supplies for the seal islands,
the patrol fleet which guards them, together with the wireless sta-
tions of the Navy established on them, as well as for all the light-
houses of the Department of Commerce, in Alaska, for the Alaska
teachers and schools of the Department of the Interior, and general
mail service outside of the limited lines of contract on Bering Sea—
this important subject was carefully studied by us. We find that
an annual saying of about $100,000 will result if the following plan
is adopted:
(a) There should be a single United States transport ship, capable
of carrying 1,000 to 1,500 tons of freight, which could and would nine
up all the coal, food supplies, oil, gasoline, hardware, etc., and
every article required by these Government stations to one common
depot in Bering Sea for distribution therefrom to the various seal-
island stations, the lighthouse points, the Fisheries Bureau, Coast
Survey, the Bureau of Education, and the United States Revenue-
Cutter Service in the waters of Bering Sea, the Arctic Ocean, and
the North Pacific, and that depot should be located at the Dutch
Harbor, Unalaska Island, as the most central and best fitted port.
(6) This owning and use of such a Government transport ship
would enable the Government to purchase coal in the best markets
at wholesale rates and then put it in a large “bulk pile” at Dutch
Harbor at just half the cost per ton which it is now compelled to
ay for coaling the several Alaskan stations of the wireless, of the
Fal choses, of the seal islands, and the United States Revenue-
Cutter Service on patrol duty in those waters.
(c) This depot of supplies could and should be placed entirely
under the control of the United States Revenue-Cutter Service,
which could and would distribute all of those supplies by that trans-
port ship aforesaid without adding a single man to the public pay
roll. It would do that work promptly and most efficiently on the
several requisitions of the Navy, Treasury, Commerce, Interior,
Post Office, and Department of Justice authorities.
(d) This Government transport ship aforesaid could and would
bring in bulk all of those stores and supplies such as coal, live cattle,
sheep, foodstuffs, clothing, etc., and discharge them in bulk at this
central depot; then in turn could distribute them from her decks to
those several Government stations aforesaid, and also receive and
transport such persons as may be designated. As it is now done,
it is in a most irregular manner to a vastly greater cost and extreme
disadvantage to the Government under the present system, due to
lack of united or full concert of action by the several departments
above cited.
(¢) The United States Navy has large supply stations at Bremer-
ton, Wash., and Mare Island, Cal. They purchase their supplies in
large quantities at wholesale rates, and which supplies are stored
there, and these are precisely such supplies as are needed and used
to-day in the several Alaskan Government stations as stated above.
Then should any additional supplies be needed for the Alaskan
service, they could and would be easily purchased by those naval
buyers at the same reduced rates which thee obtain for their other
stores.
32 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The single item of coal, if a coal pile at Dutch Harbor were estab-
lished as above described, would result in an annual saving to the
Government of more than $70,000 per annum.
This saving on all items of Alaskan Government supplies annually
would not be less than $100,000 per annum over the present chaotic
system of purchase and distribution.
We submit the foregoing statements of fact, with the several
exhibits of specific detail, as itemized above, to you, as our report
made in obedience to your letter of instruction, dated June 21 last.
Very respectfully,
Henry W. ELviorr.
A. F. GALLAGHER.
EXHIBIT A.
JE
Specific details of the fur-seal census of 1913, made by Henry W.
Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents of the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, July 10-20,
1913, on the Pribilof rookeries of the seal islands of Alaska,
giving the facts and figures in detail, with charts of the 17 breed-
ming grounds or rookeries on St. Paul and St. George Islands,
with a résumé of the fur-seal census of 1872-1874, 1890, as to
details of their making, in contrast with the work of the Jordan
Commission of 1896-1898, and the census work of the Bureau of
Fisheries up to date of 1912.
THE FUR-SEAL CENSUS, 1890 TO DATH, 1913, SEAL ISLANDS OF ALASKA
Our survey of the fur-seal herd this season (July 10-20, 1918) —
has clearly proved the error of the Jordan-Thompson Commission’s
census of 1896-97. That census in Dr. Jordan’s final report (p. 79
et seq., Fur-Seal Investigations, 1896-97, Part I) gave only 376,000
seals of all classes to this herd as existing then (season of 1896-97)
upon the rookeries and hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands. _
Upon the basis of that erroneous sum total, all of the statements
annually issued by the Bureau of Fisheries since then, up to 1912,
have been made. The steady killmg by the pelagic sealer and the
lessees annually had made no greater inroad upon that ‘‘scientific”’
herd of 376,000 seals of 1897 fhe to leave by August 1, 1912, the
sum total of ‘‘215,000 seals of all classes.’ (This is Jordan’s last
census, i. e., 165,352, breeding seals and young, and some 40,000
nonbreeding seals.)
The manifest error of this census of the Jordan commission for
1897 1 is at once apparent when a careful review of the killing on land
and in the sea is made from 1897 to date of 1912, as above. The
manifest truth of the Elliott survey of that herd in 1890 is also fully
declared by this House committee’s survey of 1913, in which 190,950
seals of all classes are found to be in existence on the Pribilof rook-
eries and hauling grounds. Elliott, in 1890, summed up the total of
the breeding Pribilof seals and young at 959,393, or a ‘‘scant mil-
lion,” as against 3,193,420 such seals in 1874 (p. 57, H. Doc. No. 175,
54th Cong., 1st sess), and against some 1,250,000 nonbreeding seals
in 1874 he found in 1890 some 80,000 only. (See H. Doc. No. 175,
54th Cong., Ist sess., pp. 57, 58.)
1 The following extract from a report upon the condition of the fur-seal herd in 1909, made by Chief Special
Agent Lembkey, shows that he was unable to agree with Dr. Jordan’s census work, which latter had pub-
lished as the “‘first accurate count ever made.”
Yet, in spite of this full understanding of its error, as given below by Lembkey, that erroneous census
of Jordan was used as the foundation of all succeeding work by Lembkey from 1904 to 1911:
In 1897 the investigation made by the commission of which Dr. David Starr Jordan was chief disclosed
a ratio of bachelors to the whole herd of 1 to 20. That ratio was used by him in his criticisms of the accuracy
of H. W. Elliott’s censuses based on acreage measurements in 1874 and 1890. Subsequently, as stated in
Mr. E. W. Sims’s report on the seal islands, in 1906, the relation of bachelors to the whole herd in 1904
and 1905, according to the censuses made by the agent in charge of seal fisheries for those years, was found .
to be, respectively, 1 to 16 and 1 to 14. "
In 1909, by such methods of computation as are available, the whole herd of seals numbered approximately
133,000, while the catch of bachelors was 14,331. Added to the latter, to form an idea of the total bachelor
ield of the herd, should be 2,000 bachelors marked and released, making a total possible catch of bachelors
or 1909 of 16,331. When we contrast this yield of bachelors for 1969 with the number of the whole herd in
53490—14——3 33
34 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
This survey of 1890, which declared at least 1,000,000 seals to
be in existence then on the Pribilof Island- rookeries, was approved
by the Joint Anglo-American Commission of 1891, and not disputed
by it. But, when Dr. Jordan came upon the ground in 1896-97, he,
and his associates, declared Kiliott’s work of 1890 to be ‘‘even worse
in its error than his survey of 1874’; Dr. Jordan then published an
‘accurate census of this herd’’—‘‘the first,’’ ever, at which he left
it ‘in 1897, being less in sum total than 380,000 seals of all classes.
When Elliott closed his survey of 1890, August 1, only 16,000
seals had been killed on the Pribilof Islands, and the pelagic hunters
had taken from this herd during the entire season of 1890 only
25,746 seals. Then in 1891, 1892, and 1893 following the modus
vivendi operated, which reduced the killing on the islands to less than
30,000 seals during that period and entirely eliminated the killing
in Bering Sea around those islands by the Canadian and American
pelagic fleet, which crossed over and fell upon the Russian herd.
In 1894 the lessees were permitted to kul 15,000 seals; and agam
in 1895 the same; while this pelagic fleet resumed its work in Bermg
Sea, getting at least during 1894-1896 the equivalent of some 200,000
seals from our herd. So, when Dr. Jordan came upon this ground in
1896, there must have been fully as many seals in existence then
as when Elliott viewed them in 1890. These animals had been
spared from harsh killing on land and in the sea, from 1890 to 1894,
so that they had at least held their own, while the killing of 1894
and 1895 had not cut them down much more than 100,000 below
the figures of 1890, which were about 1,000,000 males, females, and
young, im round numbers.
that year, we have a relation of bachelors to the whole herd of 1 to 9. The following table will show the
various ratios for the years mentioned:
Ratio of bachelors in certain years.
rere. - Ratio of
zs Bachelors Whole Bachelors
Year. prope catch to
killed. herd. released. holethera
|
1897 20, 766 A025 850" | 2.2 eee ee 1 to 20.
1904. . 13, 128 243,103 2,054 | 1 to 16.
1905... 14,368 223,009 2,174 | 1 to 14.
1909 14, 331 133, 000 2,000 | 1 to 9.
This would show that the ratio which the catch of bachelors bears to the whole herd has changed from
1 to 20 in 1897 to 1 to 9 in 1909.
The percentage of bachelors dismissed from the killing field in 1897 was 41 per cent; in 1904, 44 per cent;
in 1905, 40 per cent; and in 1909, 32 percent. This shows that killing in 1909 was 9 per cent of these males;
the reserve has fallen steadily to 4,000 rejections in 1909, including those among the marked bachelors.
Its steady diminution during this period apparently indicates that to maintain the quota at a stable figure
this reserve had to be drawn upon more heavily every succeeding year; or, conversely, the rejections each
year became fewer in order to secure the quota. It certainly is true that a steady but gradual reduction
canarna in ate number of bachelors rejected, and had such reduction not been made the quota would-
have suffered.
The reduction of this reserve will make it a matter of difficulty to secure a quota in 1910 approaching
in size that of 1909. With fewer of the older animals to draw upon, dependence will be had mainly upon
the young or 2-year-olds. With the chance that there will be fewer of these than in 1909, it would appear
problematical whether enough can be found to equa! or approach the catch of 1909.
The proportion which the pelagic catch bears to the whole herd has changed also. In 1897 the pelagic
catch, 24,321, bore the same relation to the whole herd, 402,850, as 1 to 16. In 1908 it was as 1 to 8
(18,151:146,636).° From this it would seem that the pleagic sealers are killing twice as many seals in
proportion as they did 11 yearsago. This is another singular fact in connection with the subject, showing
that conditions at the present time differ entirely from previous years.
It may be that by the methods of estimation used, the number in the whole herd in recent years has
been placed too low, or, rather, that there are more seals in the herd than are given in the estimates or
censuses. It is either in this possibility or the one already mentioned—that the mortality among pups
is less than hitherto—that the cause of this change of relation of bachelor catch to the whole herd must
be sought. (Appendix A, pp. 763-764, June 24, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor.) :
as
oy
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 35
This Elliott figure of about 1,000,000 seals for 1897, as against
376,000 which Jordan declared to be the “‘first accurate census,” was
really the correct total for that year; there must have been at least as
many seals alive then, or it would have been utterly impossible to
find 190,950 of them alive in 1913, as were found by Elhott and
Gallagher during their survey made July 10-20, 1913.
Those Jordan commission census figures, which have been annually
published officially since 1896 by the Departments of the Treasury
and of Commerce and Labor, have all been predicated on these
erroneous figures of 1897, which Dr. Jordan and his associates have
steadily insisted were accurate and not misleading.
There is another salient fact brought out by this 1913 census of
Elliott and Gallagher. There is an entire absence of idle or surplus
breeding bulls; they have been completely eliminated by this close
killing and illegal taking of them on the islands.
Eyen that callous officialism of the Bureau of Fisheries was frank
to make the following statement to the committee February 29, 1912,
when questioned closely about the killmg of young male seals under
its direction:
Hearing No. 9, Feb. 29, 1913, pp. 368, 369, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
Commerce and Labor.]
Mr. Lempxey. It might be claimed that the size of the herd of idle bulls is very
small, and that therefore not enough male seals escape the killing grounds to main-
tain an ideally healthy relation between breeding males and females. It is true
that the number of idle bulls is small.
In a highly polygamous species, such as the committee understands the fur seal
to be, no injury can be wrought to the species from the killing of the young non-
breeders, unless that killing became so drastic as to prevent the survival of enough
males to properly reproduce the race. Such surplus males as are not required for
breeding purposes are as useless zoologically as if they did not exist. Unless, there-
fore, it can be proven that the killing on the Pribilofs has resulted in the culling of
males so closely that not enough bulls were at all times present to properly fertilize
the iemales, it assuredly can not be claimed that killing of these surplus young males
does injure or ever has injured the species.
The absence of a sufficient number of males would become apparent through any
one or both of the two following means, namely:
1. The absence of idle bulls on the breeding rookeries.
2. The presence on the rookeries of adult females without young.
The presence or absence of idle bulls on the rookeries I regard as the most conclusive
test to be applied in determining whether or not a sufficiency of adult males is present.
Given a surplus of bulls, or more than enough to provide all the cows with consorts,
we can be fully assured that there are enough bulls present for breeding purposes, or,
as David Harum says, “A little too much is just right.’’ On the other hand, if there
are no idle bulls present, it is impossible to ascertain whether enough males are on
hand to insure the impregnation of all the females. But we can be well assured of
that fact in the face of a number of idle and active bulls. It isa significant fact that,
in the whole mass of evidence presented to this committee to prove injury to the herd
through land killing, nothing has been laid before it to show any scarcity of bulls,
nor, so far as I know, has the subject been mentioned. No allegation of that character
has been made, for the very sufficient reason that no evidence of that nature exists.
At all times in the history of the seals have idle bulls been present, sometimes more
than at others, but always a surplus. Until the critics can successfully allege an
absence of surplus male lite, their strictures upon land killing must lack value. Under
present regulations, which require the exemption from killing of many choice males
each year, an elimination of the idle bull class can not occur.
That the “idle bulls” had completely disappeared from many of
the breeding grounds by July 10-20, last, was freely admitted by the
agents of the United States Bureau of Fisheries who accompanied
86 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher. At rare intervals on the other rooke-
ries a bull without place or location near the overcrowded harems
would be seen—a fair and fit indication that something defective in
its organization caused its indifference and vagrancy.
This complete disappearance of the “idle” or surplus ‘“ breeding
bulls,’ as above stated, which should be hovering around the outer
lines of the harems, the complete disappearance also of the “ polsee-
catchie’’ or 5-year old bulls, too, makes the following statement
of record, timely now, for it again tells the story truly of how and why
this surplus male life has been thus wholly eliminated as a factor on
these Pribilof rookeries by 1913.
In making his argument for the need of checking up the close killing
of all the young male seals as done by the lessees since 1896, to date
of 1903, Mr. Elliott made the following statement of conditions then,
which holds good to-day. It clearly shows how, and why this ex-
cessive and illegal killing of “‘yearlings and seals having skins weigh-
ing less than 6 pounds” has brought this herd to the very verge of
complete physical destruction under the Russian régime of 1817-34,
and under ours, has done so again, to-day. Ina letter dated January
8, 1904, addressed to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Mr.
Elhott said:
JANUARY 8, 1904
The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Washington, D. C.
Str: I respectfully submit the following statements of fact, without adding any
opinions of my own, as the basis of a proper request for prompt action on your part in
order that the fur-seal species of Alaska shall not be completely destroyed, root and
branch, on the Pribilof Islands during the coming season, under existing rules and
regulations.
The commercial ruin of our fur-seal herd was effected at Paris, August 16, 1893.
I will not advert to the errors of our own agents in charge of our case which led fo this
humiliating result. I should say at this point that I did all in my power in 1890 and
1891 to prevent the course mapped out and followed to defeat by these agents. My
protests in November, 1890, and in January, 1891, to Mr. Blaine were in vain and I
had nothing to say or do with the maganement of that case after the 6th day of January,
1891; my knowledge and understanding of the subject were ignored, and save the
tardy and forced adoption of the modus vivendi of 1891-1893, which I urged in Novem-
ber, 1890, no argument or wish of mine prevailed in the preparation of thiscase. Jam
in no way responsible for the wretched conduct of that case of our Government before
the Paris tribunal and its resultant shame and misery, to say nothing of the immense
loss of public property also following.
The figures and facts which I herewith present for your information and use declare
that the bitter sequel of commercial ruin for our interests on the seal islands of Alaska
is right at hand; that sequel is the immediate extermination of this anomalous, val-
uable, and wonderful marine life which must exist on the Pribilof group, but it can
not and will not exist by its own law of life anywhere else.
By way of introduction to the following tabulated statements showing the rapid —
decline of the fur-seal herd since 1872 permit me to say that I am, fortunately, in
ossession of the complete and indisputable proof of my statement that 4,500,000
ur seals—cows, bulls, and pups—were in existence on the rookeries and hauling
grounds of St. Paul and St. George Islands, in fine form and condition, during the
seasons of 1872-1874, inclusive. I am fortunate in holding all of this indisputable and
self-asserting evidence just as it was secured and recorded in 1872, 1873, and 1874;
the original records, surveys in detail, and notes are mine.’ That point of departure
in 1872-1874 enables me to authoritatively and clearly express to you the real loss
of life which the Government has sustained in this ruin of its industry on the seal
islands of Alaska; without it no adequate expression of the truth could be made by
myself or anyone else which would be credible and accepted by the judicial mind.
The first point to which I desire to draw your attention is the following official record
of the loss of life on the seal islands of Alaska from 1872 down to 1903, inclusive:
=
INVESTIGATION’ OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 87
Number of fur seals—males, females, and young.
1872-1874. The surveys of Elliott and Maynard; act approved Apr. 22, 1874. 4, 500, 000
1890.
1891.
1896.
1897.
1898.
-1899.
1900.
1903.
The survey of Elliott; act approved Apr. 5, 1890.........-...-/.----
The Canadian-American Joint Commission survey, ‘‘about”..-....-
The Jordan-Thompson Joimt Commission survey (p. 22 of Jordan’s
preliminary report, Treasury Department Doc. No. 1913)-........
The Jordan-Thompson Joint Commission survey declares that ‘‘the
rookeries on which the pups were counted show a reduction of 14.4
per cent” (i. e., 14.4 per cent fewer seals than in 1896).........--
Report Secretary of the Treasury, page xxxiv, Dec. 6, 1898: ‘‘The
conditions of the rookeries show a most apparent decrease in the
numbers of seals frequenting the islands.’’ No estimate of per-
centage of loss is made, but 1t can not be ‘‘most apparent” unless
that loss of life is at least 12 per cent of the figures agreed upon in
ISM ORS AS BG a BS oo Terrain So ere Ieer tS Siete a ary orn tenets une Sue
Report Secretary of the Treasury, page xxxi, Dec. 5, 1899: ‘‘The
condition on the rookeries shows a continued decline in the herd.”’
(‘‘The agent in charge reports a decline of 20 per cent” from the
ficures of 1898.—Report Secretary of the Treasury, p. xxxii, Dec. 4,
ODO) Pees bIS GIVES US= 5c, \S28e 52 5 SAIS SS aise eee RS ES OE oe
Report Secretary of the Treasury, page xxxli, Dec. 4, 1900: ‘‘The
agent in charge reports that the seal life on the islands in 1899 was
20 per cent less than in 1898.”’ ‘‘The rookeries were examined dur-
ing the past season by an agent of the Fish Commission.’’ ‘‘He
reports a decrease in the seal life on the rookeries as compared with
former years.’’ ‘‘Smaller seals were taken this year than ever
before.’’ Report United States Fish Commission, 1900, page 165:
“The seals have been diminishing upon the breeding grounds for
many years, the annual decrease during the past few years amount-
ing to about 20 per cent.’’ This testimony reduces the herd in
no reference is made of this new power for destruction, although
the department on Sept. 25, 1902, received an official report
declaring that 16 of these vessels were thus engaged. Therefore,
since the same forces of destruction which have been at work on
the herd since 1896 have again been all actively employed with
the addition of the “‘16 Japanese” vessels, it is only reasonable to
declare a reduction of at least 12 per cent from the number allowed
for 1901, and this gives us at the close of the season of 1902 not to
COREE CU aragonite EY | ENA eA tr MERELY ANE gS AL Se, ARN
Also, in this report of the Treasury Department for 1902 is
omitted the statement of the special agent in charge of the islands
in his report for this year, that ‘‘a careful count of harems made
this year shows a falling off of 25 per cent of breeding bulls.”’ The
reason why this important fact is omitted is evident to any intelli-
gent reader; it would utterly deny the Secretary’s assertion that
‘the herd isin a more stable condition”; it is therefore suppressed.
The Government agent declares that at the close of the season of 1903
the number of seals alive does not exceed......----------------
The season he refers to closes Aug. 1, 1903.
1, 059, 000
1, 000, 000
440, 000
376, 640
331, 000
264, 962
238, 962
204, 887
180, 000
150, 000
38 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
A recapitulation of the foregoing official record of the rate and progress of the decline
of the fur-seal herd of Alaska shows, concisely, that there were in—
Males, females,
: “ and young.
ST OTST. os Ae ee Loe eg eee ee 4,500, 000
D909 505 ce ras fA SE Oe i is ea oe oy ne ae 1, 059, 000
SON: Ssh ede Sexe a ISS Re ee ee ae ee 1, 000, 000
VBOG eos EPO Oe EE irk SU hrm ee eee 440, 000
ASOT hil i ae Bie ROU i niet oe eel ne 376, 000
TSO Sy os eC SE RUT BT ee SECT REE ea eer era 331, 000
VROQ! ee ORES BP Reena oo eer lee eae 264, 000
VOOO Foe. he TSE SS OCC rir ea ee 233, 000
LQ0D seh eR) 18 Oc. BONE are A ae Se Beai cas 204, 000
gD Ae eta ye I as Mie es Cee eRe ner oma PUM AL SNe el 180, 000
QOS eee ae See ae Wap atat ks Gun stapes ane Sodtareie ayaa olor eee 150, 000
: hee a census of the fur-seal cows alone has been officially recorded since 1896, as
ollows:
1896:;@ordan’s report)s.5 2.02 2u Sata ee ee ae oe 157, 405
NSO 7G(Vordants TEpOrb): 20 o-- aaah ene een ee 134, 582
1900 (United States Fish Commissioner’s report).......------ 100,000
1901 pee agent, Treasury Department, report)........-.-. 91,236
1902 (special agent, Treasury Department, report) !.........--- 94, 882
Certainly true it is that these bulls are ‘“‘falling off.’’ They are dying of old age on
these rookeries, and no new blood has been permitted to reach these breeding grounds
since 1896 so as to fill the vacancies thus created; and it is equally certain and true
that the same annual loss of cows has taken place in 1903 which has marked the pre-
ceding seasons, since there has been no cessation of the work of slaughter on land
and in the sea in all of those years, and there is none to-day.
The next point in order is the following analysis of the status of the male life on the
rookeries or breeding grounds, which clearly shows the total elimination of this life by
1907 under existing rules and management.
In 1872-1874 there were some 90,000 breeding bulls and 1,250,000 cows (primipares,
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 1,125,000 pups.
In 1890 this herd was reduced to some 14,000 breeding bulls and about 420,000 cows
(primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 380,000 pups.
In 1896 this herd was still further reduced to some 5,000 bulls and about 144,000
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 130,000 pups.
In 1903 this herd is reduced to some 2,200 bulls and about 75,000 cows (primipares,
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 68,000 pups.
These 2,200 breeding bulls of 1903 are the survivors of those young males which
were spared in 1890 and by the modus vivendi of 1891-1893, and thus allowed to
grow up to the age of 6 years and then take their places in 1894, 1895, and 1896 on the
rookeries as 6 and 7 year old ‘‘seecatchie.”’
In 1894 and in 1895 a few hundred 4-year-olds may have escaped the club on the
killing grounds and thus came in as 6-year-olds in 1896 and 1897.
But in 1896 no 3-year-old seal was passed over the killing grounds which was not
killed in 1897 as a 4-year-old.
And in 1897 and 1898 no 3-year-old seal escaped the killer’s club, except to die on
the killing grounds as a 4-year-old in 1898 and 1899.
And in 1899 no 2-year-old seal was permitted to escape on these grounds unless to
die as a 3-year-old in 1900.
And in 1900 no well-grown yearling seal was spared on these slaughter fields, ex-
cept to perish as a 2-year-old in 1901.
And in 1901 every yearling that came ashore was taken, and if a few escaped they
met the club in 1902 sure, as 2-year-olds.
And in 1902 every young male seal that landed was taken, so that out of 22,199,
16,875 were “‘long” and average yearlings, or ‘‘5-pound” or ‘“‘eyeplaster” skins.
In this clear light of the close killing of the young male life as given above, it will be
observed that no young or fresh male blood has been permitted to mature and reach
the breeding grounds since 1896.
The average life of a breeding bull is from 15 to 18 years; he does not keep his place
longer for good and obvious reasons. The youngest bulls to-day upon that breeding
1 This increase of some 5 per cent in cows over the figures of 1901 is a self-evident blunder, because its
author in his report of 1902 says: “‘A careful count of harems made this year shows a falling off of 25 per cent
of breeding bulls.’’
2 © Fed
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 39
round are not less than 12 years old—most of them older. They are now rapidly
ying of old age—witness the following:
An official report in 1902 declares that these breeding bulls had decreased in number
from 1901 to the end of 1902 at least 25 per cent.
An official report in 1903 again declares a decrease from 1902 to the end of this season
(1903) of 17 per cent; 42 per cent since 1901.
The close of the season of 1904 will show at least 20 per cent reduction again; and in
1905 again 20 per cent at least, to entirely cease by 1907 unless steps are taken at once to
stop the run on this life by land (and sea killing) clubbing in 1904 of the choice young
male seals, yearlings and upward, to the end of the season of 1906—stop it entirely.
I now submit a tabulated statement, which is in the form of a prophecy, based upon
the foregoing figures of fact, with the reasons guiding my forecast.
A table which shows the annual rate of progress in the extermination of the fur-seal
herd of Alaska which will take effect under existing rules and regulations by 1907
unless checked in 1904:
Pribilof Island seals on the islands.
Class. 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909
Old bulls (youngest to-day 12 years)... 2, 200 1, 650 1, 165 400 150 (?) None.
Bruppineicows. Aue sos SS eee 65,000 | 56,250 | 37,885 | 22,825 | 15,000 5, 000 3, 000
Wirein cows, Aug: 1.2. : 52.2.5 5.82.22. 10, 000 5, 000 3, 000 2, 800 500 | None. |........
Pups, born June and July....... ---| 65,000 | 56,250 | 37,885 | 20,000 | 10,000 5,000 | None.
Male yearlings, Aug. 1................- 1, 000 500 300 300 ? INOW) legeenoos
Female yearlings, Aug. 1.-............ 10, 000 6, 000 4,000 2,000 500 (?) None.
Boba Sects Seclatacsiaiserdeislae siesta 153,200 | 125,650 | 84,235 | 48,625 | 26,250 | 10,000 3,000
PMG CaLChiLOV AUG sl so 5e cc ccanceanees 19,252 | 16,000 8, 000 (?) NOME Ieee Sa eee | haere
Pelar iC Catch tOAN OV.0k2 sen sane ssce ces 25,000 20, 000 15, 000 12,000 10, 000 6,000 | None.
RGA ese takin a Bae sce aioe ta see 44, 252 | 36,000 | 23,000} 12,000} 10,000 6, 000 (?)
Owing to the fact that the youngest of these old breeding bulls isat least 12 years old
in 1903 and that the service imposed upon it, as a rule, ends in the sixteenth and
eighteenth year of its age, this life is rapidly dying off and will entirely go by the end
of the season oi 1907; 42 per cent of its form in 1901 disappeared by 1903.
No young male seal above 2 years of age will appear next season (1904) on the haul-
ing grounds, unless an order prohibiting the killing of all choice male seals above 10
months of age shall be made for the seasons of 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907 on the seal
islands of Alaska; no fresh young male blood can mature quickly enough to come onto
the breeding grounds and save the birth rate from total collapse in 1907. Even if
this is done it will be a close call for that life anyhow. To postpone such an order
to 1905 would be too late, if the species itself is to be saved from complete extirpation.
This seul will ensue as sure as fate unless the killing is at once held up on the seal
islands.
The full number of old bulls carried on this table from 1903 to 1907 represents all
that will be seen in those years and alive on the breeding grounds; but this number is
greater every season than the real number of virile or potent sires; for instance, in 1903
we count 2,200 old bulls, but a large number of them lay upon the rookery without
cows.!_ Why do they thus lay idle when the bulls in active service around them have
more than twice as many cows in 1903 as they should have were the service normal
on this field? These bulls were somnolent and idle in 1903 when the cows in the
harems around them increased from a normal ratio of 22 females to 1 male sire to 44
cows to the bull. ;
They were thus idle because they had lost through age the vigor to attract and
controla harem. I saw this state of affairs on these breeding grounds in 1890 and raised
the note of alarm then for the first time; stopped the killing on July 20, when only
19,000 of the 60,000 quota had been taken, and forced my modus vivendi through,
which took effect in 1891, 1892, and 1893.
1 The following official entry made in the journal of the United States special agent in charge of St. George
Island, under date as given below, describes in detail what Mr. Elliott alludes to as “impotent bulls’’:
St. GrorRGE ISLAND, July 20, 1906.
At a favorable point on north rookery a cow in heat was teasing a bull, biting his neck and lifting up
her hind parts, which the bull smelled. Shortly afterwards he endeavored to copulate, but soon gave up
the attempt, spread out on the rock and went to sleep. The cow renewed her blandishments from time to
time, but the bull had evidently reached his limit.
40 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
And these bulls which we see alive on the breeding grounds now, aud will continue
to observe until 1997. are the survivors of the young male 2, 3, and 4 year olds which
were saved in 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1893, plus a few 3 and 4 year olds which may have
slipped through in 1894 and 1895.
Since 1896 no fresh young male blood has been ‘permitted to pass the club on the
killing grounds of St. Paul and St. George, and the effect of utterly shutting off the
birth rate by 1906 and 1907 is plainly exhibited in the analysis tabluated above.
In the light of the foregoing statements of fact, am I not warranted in asking that
you at once suspend all killing on the islands by the lessees for the seasons of | 1904,
1905, and 1996; and that only such young males as may be necessary for natives’ food
be killed thereon during those seasons, solely under the direction of your agents, the
skins of which can be carefully preserved and seld by the Government—the proceeds
thereof turned into the Public Treasury?
You can not divide the authority for killing on the islands in the present condition
of affairs between your agents and the agents of the lessees, without scandal, confusion,
and failure.
You have full and ample power to suspend all killing of seals by the lessees under
the distiact terms of their lease, whenever the preservation of that life is at stake,
and which you are especially charged by Congress to preserve; the lessees have no
recourse on the Government, under existing conditions, if you suspend their opera-
tions indefinitely, by the express terms of this lease, and which was drawn by Mr.
Windom in March, 1890, for the very purpose of meeting just such a contingency as
now arises. I know it, because I was consulted by him when he was drafting it.
Again, the lessees have no ground of complaint, legally or morally, if you ‘entirely
suspend their work; they have made an enormous profit annuaily since 1890, even
through the short-lnilline of the modus vivendi in 189!-1893. The entire amount of
their capital invested in the plant on these islands is only $67,000.
I have detailed figures which declare their annual profits since 1900 to have been
simply enormous from a commercial standpoint: the fur trade has recognized the fact
that the end of supply from the seal islands is near at hand; and since 1897 a steady
immense rise in price per skin, no matter how small, has taken place up to date, making
the profits on the island catches and the pelagic catches way beyond the figures of
greatest values ever known to the business since 1900.
This step which T ask you to take is provided for by existing law; there are other
steps which I think you ought to take, but which you can not take until Congress
acts; of them and about them I desire very much to confer personally with you.
I am, very respectiully,
Your friend and servant, Henry W. Exwiorr,
1228 Fourteenth Street NW., Washington, D. C.
This statement, as above, stirred Mr. F. H. Hitchcock, who, as
chief clerk of the department, had the entire administrative details
of this business in his hands. He issued those checks upon that
work of the lessees which Mr. Elliott called for on May 1, 1904, and
which are now so well and favorably known to the committee as the
Hitchcock rules.
These were enforced fairly well in 1904 and in 1905, but after that
the greedy lessees prevailed upon the agents so that the ‘‘saved”
seals in June and July were all secured as ‘‘food seals” during the
same season in October and November following. So thorough was
this nullification of the Hitcheeck rules brought about since 1906
that to-day the most careful survey between July 1 10-20 last failed
to d sclose the presence of a single ‘‘idle” able-bodied fur-seal bull
on many of the 17 desolated breeding grounds of the fur-seal herd
on the Pribilof Islands.
The absolute necessity of letting this young male life rest from
‘scientific’? disturbance, such as the driving of the pups to ‘‘count”’
them, and from the senseless slaughter of ‘all the “ yearlings” with
the 2, 3, and 4 year old males during the next five years is way
beyond any sensible objection or even argument to the contrary.
‘The proof conclusive of that erroneous census of Dr. Jordan’s com-
mission in 1896, when he declared that a ‘‘true count” such as he
had made then showed the presence of only 440,000 seals on the
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 4]
Pribilof breeding and hauling grounds, is well brought out by the
following testimony, given to the House committee April 20, 1912,
in hearing No. 10, pages 605, 606, House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce and Labor, to wit:
AS TO KILLING ON LAND AT THE DISCRETION OF DEPARTMENTAL AGENTS, IN RE FUR-
SEAL HERD,
Mr. Extrotr. How can any ‘“‘percentage of reservation” of ‘‘10 per cent” or ‘'25
per cent,”’ or ‘‘50 per cent,’’ or “95 per cent” of young male life be ‘‘safely fixed” by
man upon the basis of the following self-evident, worthless, and padded census of
the fur-seal herd of Alaska?
Ever since 1900 the departmental reports to Congress have annually declared an
immense loss suffered by the fur-seal herd of Alaska from the work of the pelagic
hunters, yet never has this annual loss been subtracted from the sum totals of their
annual census tables officially sent to Congress. Why?
Witness the following proof of it officially given:
The official census of the fur seal herd of Alaska as annually made and published
since 1904 declares that there is not a fur seal in existence on the Pribilof Islands at
the close of the season of 1910, if the official statements of annual loss made from
pelagic sealing are computed.
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;
1907, 172,502 seals of all classes alive August 1, 1907; 1908 (no figures), August 1, 1908;
1909, about 140,000 seals of all classes, August 1, 1909; 1910, 137,000 seals of all classes
alive August 1, 1910; 1911, about 133,000 seals of all classes alive August 1, 1911.
These official figures of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor are quoted verbatim
from those annual reports as appended. They declare the fact that if the figures of
1904 are correct, then, by the figures of annual loss alone since that season, there is
not a fur seal in existence on the seal islands of Alaska since 1908.
In these departmental tables the strange and inexcusable error is made of not
subtracting the loss entailed annually, after August 1 to November 30, by the pelagic
sealers’ catch. If that loss is taken from this count, as it must be taken, then those
departmental tables will show a finish in 1907 as follows:
At the close of the season of 1904 the pelagic catch from this Alaskan herd was
22,670 seals. Taking the department’s own estimate of this loss as about “three
seals killed for each one taken,’’ then there is a total of some 67,000 seals to subtract
from 243,103 seals alive August 1. That would leave alive at the opening of season
of 1905 only 177,000 seals in round numbers instead of 243,103.
Seals, male
and female.
Therefore, when the season of 1905 opened there were........--.....------- 177, 103
“hen the lessees took therefrom-up to Aug. 1 se. scl jon ecco se Gales anes 14, 000
arSa Hyg CAVEA HOE ge poy Pea Me ae hac ae a eR ea egies 163, 103
Then the pelagic catch from August to November was 20,000, or a loss of... 60, 000
Thus leaving alive at the opening of 1906 only.......-....-...--.--- 103, 103
Het GHC lesscesiidok mp tovAug wy 1906s 22 deeds a. ae we 3 nab aeons 14, 000
CAV ARO AG SHO My eran =< et Pa el Mea ek ee ent MOLItS smee 89, 103
Then the pelagic catch, August to November, follows, of 20,000, or loss of.. 60, 000
Thus leaving alive at the opening of 1907 only. ......-.......------- 29, 103
Then the lessees took therefrom up to Aug. 1.........-.....-020-00eeeeeeee 14, 000
eA AM OREN CH iby ee he. Sake eS fe Le RES vel rarest 5 peibile sida 15, 103
Then the pelagic catch, August to November, 22,000, or loss of.........---- 66, 000
Thus leaving not a single seal alive at the opening of the season of 1908.
In the light of the above reduction of those figures of seal life and its status from
year to year, is it at all strange that those authors of these grotesque census tables
should juggle my figures in vain, as given on page 99, Hearing, House Committee on
Foreign Affairs, January 4, 1912?
42 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The estimates of loss! which the Bureau of Fisheries put upon the
killing of females by the pelagic hunters are excessive; true when
the adult primipara (female) is killed heavy with young, but not
when the nubile is slaughtered. That makes their charge of ‘three
seals is lost to the herd for every female taken,” excessive. But,
nevertheless, since they have annually repeated this charge against
the killing of the pelagic sealer since 1890 to date of the sealing
treaty now in effect, December 15, 1911, the effect of their making
this heavy loss so specific should have been enough to warrant a
large deduction from their annual “‘paper census” that “‘accurate
and careful counting”’ of the herd which is set forth to the commit-
tee in the following dogmatic words:
[Hearing No. 9, p. 367, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.}
Mr. Lempxery. Many erroneous statements have been made to this committee and
to the Committee on Conservation of National Resources in the Senate as to the
number of seals which now compose the herd.
In view of this confusion of data with which the committee has had to contend,
it may be well to give to it at once a detailed statement of the census of seal life on the
Pribilof Islands as taken at the close of the last season, 1911:
Bulls; active: (with: cows): 002-2 S22 322 Se, ee 1, 356
Bulls adult, but idle: (without cows): 2-s22--2 2. 42. 4-- eae 329
Haliibulls((tromr4 toiGsyears)s2—-- oes seen ee eee ee eee 2,222
Bachelors <a-year-olds.2. 2c) 2-2 ko cee eee tee ees Ae 1, 200
Bachelors+2-year-olds: 2.2.0. Yr Sake ee Sa eee eis 2, 897
Bachelors) l=vear-olds! S35 St 25S Fae ee ee le 15, 322
Male!pups-'s. i2es2231 2 ae. Re ee ae 19, 700
Breeding femaless 9.5 2c 5s aE Ses Se 8 ec ae 39, 400
2-year-old iemalest 7h. eee Se cee oe eens 10, 297
‘Yearling females: sees soe: SUR A oe eee 15, 322
Bemale*pupss pits e ies fo whee aia te ace ret ere Ste ek en ere 19, 700
Total xt ci: cs CR ae ee Se eS ee Dees 127, 745
1 This great loss annually, never noted or counted by the scientific census takers of the Pribilof herd,
from 1904 to 1912.
Aside from the great loss in seals which are shot and not recoverable it must be remembered that nearly
80 per cent of all seals taken in Bering Sea are pregnant females having nursing pups ashore, which die of
starvation after the lossofthe mother. The death of each pregnant female, therefore, means the loss of three
lives to the herd, in addition to the great waste incident to the nonrecovery of seals shot in the water, which
has just been referred to.
In view of the facts just mentioned, it may fairly be believed that the catch of 27,216 skins by the pelagie
fleets in 1907 represents a loss to the herd of upwara of 75,000 animals. They show that to secure 27,000
skins on land only that number of animals need be killed, and the surplus males which can be spared
without injury, while to secure 27,000 skins in the water practically 75,000 animals must be slaughtered.
Stronger proof of the destructiveness of this practice and of the certainty and rapidity with which it re-
duces the herd can not be given. (Annual Report Seal Fisheries of Alaska, 1906. By W. I. Lembkey,
agent in charge of Alaskan seal fisheries. Department of Commerce and Labor, Division of Alaskan Fish-
eries, Washington, Dec. 14, 1906. P. 279, Appendix A, June 24, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
With regard to this matter of the number of [fur seals in existence during 1872-1874, which Dr. Jordan
has asserted never exceeded two and a half millions (2,500,000). and about which he knew absolutely noth-
ing (and after a few weeks of experience spent on the islands), it is interesting to note the opinion of W. I.
Lembkey, who has passed every season on the rookeries of St. Paul Island since 1899 to the end of the sea-
son of 1913, or 14 breeding summers (and three winters also of this period), to wit:
He testified before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, Jan. 25, 1907, as
follows (p. 66, MS. Notes of Hearing):
“Mr, LEMBKEY. In 1870 conservative estimates placed the number on the Pribilof Islands between four
and five millions; to-day there are probably not over 180,000 seals in the entire herd.
“Mr. WiiLIAMS. 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. LEMBKEY. I have no doubt they would.”
Contrast the above opinion of Lembkey (who indorses the Elliott figures) with that of Jordan below, who
in 1897, after insisting that there were only 376,000 seals of all classes alive then in the Pribilof herd, ha
the following to say of the Elliott figures of 4,700,000 seals in 1872-1874 and 1,029.000 in 1890:
12. “Tosum up the whole matter, we are unable to accept Mr. Elliott’s estimate as representing anything
more than an individual opinion greatly overdrawn by a too vivid imagination.
“In making the above criticisms of Mr. Elliott’s census, it has not been our purpose to tear down and
condemn work which in many respects under the circumstances deserves commendation; but a dispo-
sition has of late been manifested to insist upon the absolute correctness of these figures, and in setting
them aside it becomes necessary for us to give reasons for such action.”
13. Elliott’s estimate of 1890 ‘‘is as bad, if not worse, than the first.” ‘It is not possible to suggest any
any explanation or justification for the vagaries which these estimates of Mr. Elliott show. a
ww,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 43
Mr. Mappev. Is that all on Pribilof Islands?
Mr. Lempxey. On both islands, that is the number constituting the present herd
at the close of the season of 1911.
The above statement! was made February 29, 1912, with the
approval of the entire “scientific” advisory board on fur-seal
service of the Bureau of Fisheries; and yet, a few months later, a
census was made by these same officials who have been busy with it
ever since June, 1896, declaring that instead of there being only
“127,000” seals of all classes alive on August 1, 1912, there were
“915,000.”
The authors of this last census were Messrs. Lembkey and George
A. Clark, the latter being the same man who aided Dr. Jordan to
make his “accurate census”’ of 1897, when he ridiculed the idea
that the figures given by Elhott in 1890 were sensible or fair.
But the common-sense survey made this season of 1913 by us
declares the fact that at least 1,000,000 seals must have been in
existence on the Pribilof rookeries during the season of 1896, and
that Jordan’s total of “376,000” for the season of 1897 is one that
is evidently and self-confessedly wrong, by the very logic of events.
The exposure of the 1911 census of the Bureau of Fisheries as asham
and without any foundation of fact, April 20, 1912, to the House
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and
Labor (pp. 605-606, Hearing No. 10), stirred those scientists to try
again and land in 1912, with some finding of sense.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE FIGURES OF THE CENSUS OF THE JORDAN COM=
MISSION, 1896-97.
In 1897 Jordan declares ‘‘an accurate survey,” based on ‘‘actual
counts,” shows that there are only 129,216 seal cows in existence on
the Pribilof rookeries. (Treasury Doc. 1994, 1898, p. 15, Nov.1, 1897.)
In 1912 Jordan’s man of 1897, G. A. Clark, declares an ‘‘actual
count”’ shows that full 81,000 seal cows are now in existence on the
Pribilof rookeries. (Economic Circular No. 10, Dept. Com. and
Labor, Dec., 1912.)
1 In spite of this sworn statement made by Lembkey, Feb. 29, 1912, yet the fact that he knew that he
did not give that committee a true figure is furnished by himself, as follows, in his report to the depart=
ment for 1908, to wit:
“The difference between the counts of pups made in the two years is so slight as to indicate on their
face that practically no change in the number of breeding cows has occurred. If these counts were taken
as a criterion of the condition of all the rookeries on the two islands, we would have to believe that there.
elles no decrease in breeding female seals during the past year. This conclusion, however, would be
to accept.
“Tf the number of breeding seals has not decreased, as these figures would lead one to believe, where,
then, could the catches of the pelagic fleets have been obtained? It is known that in 1907 some 17,000
sealskins were marketed by the two fleets—Canadians and Japanese—most of which were those of female
seals. This, of course, is in addition to the 15,000 young male skins taken in 1907 on the islands by the
lessee. A total of 32,000 skins, therefore, was taken from the herd in 1907, which, in that year, was com:
posed approximately of 175,000 animals, of which only 65,000 were adult and virgin cows.
“Tn addition to this slaughter in 1907, the catch of the pelagic fleets in 1908 has been as heavy as in the
preceding year. The Canadian fleet, it is true, contains ae vessels this year than ever before, 8 in all.
As against this, however, we have an increased Japanese fleet, composed approximately of 38 vessels.
Those pelagic schooners that have been spoken this year by the patrolling vessels were found to have been
quite successful. Tbe 2schooners captured last July by the U.S. S. Bear had over 700 skins between them.
“With all this activity, it is impossible to believe that so many seals could have been taken out of the
Pribilof herd—now only a skeleton—without decreasing the size of the herd. With so many agencies
consuming the life of the herd, there is only one factor to offset this decrease, namely, the annual incre-
ment of virgin cows. If we are to accept the conclusion that no decrease occurred between 1907 and 1908,
we must believe that the increment of virgin cows during the period mentioned was as large as the catch
of the schooners, added to the land killing, the loss from natural causes, and the waste from seals killed
in the water and notrecovered. Suchaconclusion can not be justified by conditions.” (Appendix A, pp.
602-603, June 24, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
With that distinct understanding, as above stated by himself, that this base of his census calculation
(the Jordan figures of 1897) was wholly in error, yet he returns to it, and continues the sham census, by
summing it up for 1908, as follows:
“Tn 1907 the whole herd was estimated at 172,512. A deduction of 15 per cent from this number would
leave 146,636 as the estimated number of animals in the Pribilof herd at the close of the season of 1898.’
44 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
In 1913 Elliott and Gallagher declare that an ‘‘accurate survey”’
and close estimate show that 80,000 seal cows are now in existence on
the Pribilofs.
The above records of 1912-13, declare the fact that Dr. Jordan’s
census of 1897 (p. 15, Treasury Doc., 1994; Treasury Dept., 1898),
as above cited, was wholly misleading and far short of the truth, for
the loss to that herd of seal cows at the hands of the pelagic hunters
since 1897, annually, has averaged not less than 25,000, or a sum
total of 350,000 cows in 14 years up to 1913.
That loss of 350,000 cows has caused a still greater loss te that herd;
it has caused the loss of 350,000 newly born pups on the islands, and
at the same time the loss of that 350,000 pups which would have been
born had the mothers not been killed, in the years following that
slaughter. That loss of three seals to the herds’ sum total, when the
cow seal is killed, declares that this herd of 1897 has lost annually
since then at least 60,000 seals, or 840,000, from pelagic sealing alone;
therefore at least 1,000,000 seals, or at least 500,000 cows, must have
been in existence when Dr. Jordan declared there were only 129,216
of them on the Pribilof rookeries in 1897.
And, further, the census of 1913, showig 80,000 cows, or 190,155
seals of all classes, alive on the rookeries then, declares the fact that the
census of 1890, made by Elhott, in which he located 400,000 cows (a
total of 959,000 seals of all classes), was fairly accurate and well
founded.
THE FUR-SEAL CENSUS—CONCLUDING SUMMARY, AND RECAPITULA-
TION OF THE HOUSE CENSUS SURVEY OF THE PRIBILOF FUR-SEAL
HERD OF 1913.
The sea rookery margin seals are all lymg down into the surf wash
to-day. All of these harems are fairly awash at this date (July 10-20,
1913), on the sea margins of the rookeries of both islands. In 1874,
and again in 1890, these seals laid up above those surf-washed mar-
gins at least 7 to 10 feet higher than they do to-day. Why are they
descending into the danger of “surf nipping,’’ which will destroy those
newly boin pups during violent storms? Why, when there is the wide
Open area now vacant, on which they rested in 1874, and 1890, right
behind them?! What has disturbed them? What has caused them
1 The following note officially entered in the journal of the United States Treasury agent, St. Paul Island
under date of Oct. 11, 1894, gives a fair idea of what a “surf nip”’ is and what it means as a danger to thé
newly-born pups:
“Thursday, Oct. 11, 1894.—In company with H. D. Chichester and Nicoli Krukoff, visited North East
Point and counted the dead pups, resulting in the finding of 2,847. Owing to the tremendous surf of the
past few weeks the rookeries were well washed and thousands of dead pups carried out to ssa. Neon Man-
drigan, who is in charge of the watchmen, reported that at times the entire rookeries were submerged, and
this statement is borne out by the fact that the point is almost separated from the mainland, the only
passage being the sand beaches on either side, the intervening ground being covered with water, and form-
ng a huge lake.”
* ce ainy; Aug. 29, 1895.—A howling southeaster blowing all day. A large surf on all sides of the
Sland.”’
Under date of Sunday, “Sept. 29, 1895” (p. 403), as to the effect of surf nip on pups, occurs the following:
“Special Agent Adams, in company with Dr. Voss and Appolon Bordofsky, made a count of dead pups
on Lagoon Reef rookery. Only one dead pup was found adjacent to the water’s edge, owing to the recent
Southwest gales, during which the surf washed over the lower breeding grounds. The count was as fol-
lows: Dead pups, 300; pups in dying condition, 40.” :
On page 410, under date of ‘Monday, Nov. 11, 1895,’’ Special Agent Adams declares that this rustling
among the pups, cows, and bulls to count.the dead pups is detrimental, in the following language:
‘Examinations of the Reef, Lukannon, Polovina, Ketavie, and Tolstoi, demonstrate the fact that the
seals are mixed up, pups and cows being together and hauled well back from the water, a condition which
I am informed has never existed before to such an extent. It has, therefore, been impossible to make
drives from the above-named rookeries. A certain drive was ordered from Middle Hill. The seals seemed
restless, a condition noticeable ever since my return to the island, Sept. 13. Whether this is due to con-
stant disturbance during the summer and breeding season, they being constantly subjected to scientific
investigation, can not say positively, but am of that opinion. The counting of pups on the rookeries neces-
Sitates the driving off of all seals, and is detrimental. It should be stopped.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 45
to lhe so much lower and closer to the danger of ‘‘surf nips,” which
they naturally and instinctively avoided heretofore, in 1874, and
again in 1890?2- ;
There is an answer, and it is this: From 1896 to date they have been
hunted from above at the mareis, as the holluschickie began to haul
in between the harems for shelter and relief from the native drivers of
the lessees.
The first work of this kind in 1890 was stopped on July 20 of that
season, and was not resumed until 1894. When the modus vivendi
of 1890-1893 ended, as it began in 1891, then this improper.
search for the holluschickie was renewed by the lessees annually, up
to the date of their last killing in 1909. Then in 1912 began the last
and most improper driving of these harems, as done by George A.
Clark, for Dr. Jordan; he says that he drove all the harems up be-
tween August 1-10, 1912, from their locations, to the high lands in
the rear, so as to ‘‘count”’ the ‘‘bunched”’ small black and newly born
pups left behind their parents in this mad scramble and smothering
rush. That disturbance prior, and since, by this driving has caused
those “‘pocket harems”’ to get closer and closer to the water, so that
now, to-day, no one can get in between them and the surf at any time,
and so surprise and drive them.
This survey which we have just finished here on St. George Island
of all of these Pribilof rookeries seems to confirm the opinion that
this constant disturbance of the breeding seals, at the very time that
they should be left alone of all times, is wrong; for it is done when
they are still busy and nervous with their reproductive burdens and
instincts, as they le scattered on the rookeries here between August
1 and 15 followmg. Not only do the proofs appear that this
“scientific” disturbance drives the seals down to the water’s edge
near the surf when they locate anew in the following year, instead of
going higher above it, as they used to do, but the S¢. George’s log
shows clearly that it is impossible to ‘‘count”’ all of these pups,!
and that it is only an estimate after all; no better than the cow ‘‘count”’
or estimate, as we have made it to-day. Taking a cow “‘count”’ at
the height of the season this year with due allowance for cows which,
with pups, are absent, and locating the harems as we have on these
charts accompanying this description, enables one next year to do
as we have done, and to follow and relocate all harems as they may
appear again on the same ground; and, as they shall increase, so that
ground will expand. If they decrease, that ground will be dimin-
ished in area. This shows at a glance as well if not better than
any attempt to get at exact numbers, which, in fact, never can be
ascertained by any man. When they shall have increased so as to
overflow these boundaries of 1890, on the annexed charts, then it
will be time to talk about lulling ‘‘surplus” male life; and also when
it does reach those boundaries of 1890, eventually to attain those of
1874, then no living man can ‘‘count” the pups, or ‘‘count”’ these
seals. If he wants to know from that hour whether this herd is
increasing or diminishing as they kill the seals annually, he will
only know it as this ground occupied by them expands or retracts
from the lines it occupies this year, as compared with those of last
year.
1 See official entries in Exhibit G, postea, showing the impossibility and the futility of attempt to count
all the live pups on any rookery. ;
46 {INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
In 1874 Henry W. Elliott made the following analysis of a detailed
description of the natural habit of fur seals on the breeding grounds
in which he, after three successive summers spent in the study of
this life, recognized the wonderful system and regular order of the
wild life which these seals follow. it is found on page 67 of House
Document No. 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, to wit:
REVIEW OF STATEMENTS CONCERNING LIFE IN ROOKERIKS.
To recapitulate and sum up the system and regular method of life and reproduc-
tion on these rookeries of St. Paul and St. George, as the seals seem to have arranged
it, I shall say that—
First. The earliest bulls land in a negligent, indolent way, at the opening of the
season, soon after the rocks at the water’s edge are free from ice, frozen snow, etc.
This is, as a rule, about the Ist to the 5th of every May. They land from the begin-
ning to the end of the season in perfect confidence and without fear; they are very
fat, and will weigh on an average 500 pounds each. Some stay at the water’s edge,
some go to the tier back of them again, and so on until the whole rookery is mapped
out by them weeks in advance of the arrival of the first female.
Second. That by the 10th or 12th of June all the male stations on the rookeries have
been mapped out and fought for, and held in waiting by the ‘‘seecatchie.’’ These
males are, as a rule, bulls rarely ever under 6 years of age; most of them over that age,
being sometimes three and occasionally doubtless four times as old.
Third. That the cows make their first appearance as a class on or after the 12th or
15th of June, in very small numbers, but rapidly after the 23d and 25th of this month
every year they begin to flock up in such numbers as to fill the harems very per-
ceptably, and by the 8th or 10th of July they have all come, as a rule—a few stragglers
excepted. The average weight of the female now will not be much more than 80 to 90
pounds each. i
Fourth. That the breeding season is at its height from the 10th to the 15th of July
every year, and that it subsides entirely at the end of this month and early in August;
also, that its method and system are confined entirely to the land—never effected in
the sea.
Fifth. That the females bear their first young when they are 3 years old, and that
the period of gestation is nearly 12 months, lacking a few days only of that lapse of
time.
Sixth. That the females bear a single pup each, and that this is born soon after
landing. No exception to this rule has ever been witnessed or recorded. !
Seventh. That the “seecatchie,’’ which have held the harems from the beginning
to the end of the season, leave for the water in a desultory and straggling manner at
its close, greatly emaciated, and do not return, if they do at all, until 6 or 7 weeks have
elapsed, when the regular systematic distribution of the families over the rookeries
is at an end for this season. A general medley of young males are now free, which
come out of the water and wander all over these rookeries, together with many old males
which have not been on seraglio duty, and great numbers of females. An immense
majority over all others present are pups, since only about 25 percent of the mother
seals are out of the water now at any one time. ;
Eighth. That the rookeries lose their compactness and definite boundaries of true
breeding limit and expansion by the 25th to the 28th of July every year. Then,
after this date, the pups begin to haul back to the right and left in small squads at
first, but as the season goes on, by the 18th of August, they depart without reference
to their mothers, and when thus scattered the males, females, and young swarm over
more than three and four times the area occupied by them when breeding and born on
the rookeries. The system of family arrangement and uniform compactness of the
breeding classes breaks up at this date.
Ninth. That by the 8th or 10th of August the pups born nearest the water first begin
to learn to swim, and that by the 15th or 20th of September they are all familiar, more
or less, with the exercise.
1 This question of whether or no the sex rate of pups born on the rookeries is equal was settled by Elliott
in 1872, who personally handied 1,670 pups just as they were driven up in November from the St. Paul
rookeries, and saw the tally of the 7,333 others summed up in the total drive of 9,002 pups made during
that month for natives’ food.
Each pup was examined before killing. The males were taken and the females released. Out of this
total of 9,002 pups thus driven 4,825 were males.
This experiment clearly declares the equality in sex as to numbers at birth_on the rookeries.
The average weight of those 4,825 pups was 39 pounds 8 ounces, and their average age when killed (Noy.
10-24, 1872) was 4 months. Some of these pups were born early in July or late in June, but nine-tenths
of them between July 10 and 20; average length from tip of nose to root of tail was 23 inches.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 47
Tenth. That by the middle of September the rookeries are entirely broken up.
Confused, straggling bands of females are seen among the bachelors, pups, and small
squads of old males, crossing and recrossing the ground in an aimless, listless manner.
The season now is over.
Eleventh. That many of the seals do not leave these grounds of St. Paul and St.
George before the end of December, and some remain even as late as the 12th of
~ January; but that by the end of October and the beginning of November every year
all the male seals of mature age—5 and 6 years and upward—have left the island.
The younger males go with the others. Many of the pups still range about the islands,
but are not hauled to any great extent on the beaches or the flats. They seem to
prefer the rocky shore margin and to lie as high up as they can get on such bluffy
rookeries as Tolstoi and the Reef. By the end of this month (November) they are
as a rule all gone.
With this analysis before us to-day, after looking into every harem
of the entire circuit of these rookeries, we are able to say that this is
the order of their hfe, and that in living to-day they are following this
same system as insistently as if it were never disturbed by that human
agency which has brought the vast herd of 1874 to this pitiful rem-
nant now surviving.
In 1874 every 100 feet of sea rookery margim carried on its line at
least 10 bulls, and every 100 feet of depth from that margin would
show a bull for every 7 feet of that. Before the cows came, before a
pup was born, these bulls fought desperately on that margin, and as
they progressed backward, for those stations. Then with the first
arrival of the breeding females along toward the end of June and the
Ath of July all this fighting ceased. Every bull seemed then to rec-
ognize the fact that from thence on until the end of the season he was
the undisputed and unchallenged possessor of his station. The cows |
came out from the water as they do to-day, not in heat, not noticed
or fought for, and they either lay as they landed or passed on over
those which had preceded them, filling up the stations between bull
and bull to the outer limits of those breeding bulls that we have just
mentioned. During all this progress of arrival, passing into ‘‘heat,”’
‘alter the birth of pups, and subsequent impregnation, no fighting
whatever took place between these males. _.
Each bull seemed to do exactly then as he does to-day; that is,
rest upon the point of vantage which he gained before the arrival of
the females, unchallenged by his neighbor, though he be 100 feet away
or only 6 or 7 feet. He may have 100 cows to-day and be fairly lost
in the medley surrounding him, as they often are under our eyes, yet
the bull outside of that station perhaps 10, 20, 30, or 40 feet away may
not have more than 1 cow, or may have 2 or3. That bull never chal-
lenges the right of his more fortunate neighbor. He never steals cows.
He never crosses from his station to torment or fight with the posses-
sor of many cows, even though he has but 1, ornone. We have been
over this entire circuit; we have never seen a pair of bulls fighting over
the possession of a cow, or in any way struggling to tear one from the
other or ‘“‘trample their pups to death.” Not an instance of that kind
has occurred in this 10 days’ study of that life, during the very height
of the season, directly under our eyes. It never occurred in 1872 when,
on St. Paul Island, there were 85,000 of these harems and when, on
St. George Island, there were 4,000; or, in all, about 90,000 rousing,
fighting bulls which, as compared with the small number found to-day,
do not differ in the slightest in their behavior, from their coming to
their going.
48 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The wide and scanty hauling of these bulls to-day on those breed-
ing grounds for this season of 1913, together with the strange massing
of immense harems around single bulls, while others immediately
around have no part in the service, renders a tabulation on the basis
of 1872-1874, or even 1890, entirely out of the question as a measure
of just contrast. We will not attempt to do it. The figures for 1890
gave 11,708 bulls for St. Paul and 800 for St. George. We have
against those figures 1,413 for St. Paul and 318 for St. George.
This decrease of virile male life on the breeding grounds causes the
normal ratio of 15 or 20 females to a male, made in 1872-1874, now to
reach way beyond that ratio, to 50 or even 100 females. Many of the
bulls are very old to-day. There is no appreciable number of young
males left alive to take their places on these breeding grounds, nor
are they in evidence, except as a shadow of what they ought to be,
as we have indicated in our figures and life study description above.
They eloquently testify by their absence to the disturbance of that
normal ratio, which is imperative if this herd is to regain its fine form
and number as recorded in 1872 and 1874. We have destroyed.by
land and in the sea that equilibrium which nature had reestablished
away back in 1857, after the Russians had destroyed it in 1834, just
as we have done since 1889-90 on these rookeries, and we must now
restore it. It can only be restored by permitting those natural laws
which govern its best form and number to reassert themselves un-
checked by us. We must let them alone until that year opens when
they shall give us evidence that at least two or three millions of them
are in existence of all classes as against the scant 200,000 living to-day.
The pelagic sealer kills all the males and all the females that come
within his reach, from 1890 to 1912, getting 10 per cent males and 90
per cent females.
The lessees kill all of the young male seals, and none of the females
save the yearlings which haul out on the islands from 1896 to 1910,
and that killing is continued by the department to 1912.
Result: That (the males and females, being born equal in number)
the males are all killed long before all of the females are.
Proof: That only 1,500 breeding males are on the Pribilof rookeries
to-day, while 80,000 breeding females are there with them, and no
young breeding bulls alive, to note, more than 3 years old, which do
not breed until 6 years old.
A SWORN STATEMENT OF THE MANNER AND METHODS ADOPTED BY
H. W. ELLIOTT IN MAKING A CENSUS OF THE PRIBILOF ROOKERIES,
SEASONS OF 1872-1874, AND 1890.
[Hearing No. 4, pp. 184-193, July 11, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor.]
[Cleveland Plain Dealer, Sept. 25, 1899.]
THe ALASKA SEAL QUESTION.
PROF. ELLIOTT DECLARES THAT THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN GIVEN
AWAY BY THE JORDAN COMMISSION.
The final report of Dr. Jordan on the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands has been
recently issued. The preliminary reports of this gentleman in 1896 and 1897 have
been variously commented on in the press as they appeared during the last two years,
and the public generally were led to believe that some practical good was to accrue
from the investigation which he was conducting; but our people now know that
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SHAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 49
Dr. Jordan’s ‘‘perfect agreement’? with the British agents was a stinple delusion
which he so joyfully announced tu the United States Senate, through Senator Perkins,
in these words: “‘Kngland shows every indication of a desire to do the fair thing.
This intention is especially clear in the fact that she has sent an honorable commiis-
sion which is familiar with all the facts ascertained by us, the head of the commis-
sion haying been with me every day throughout the summer, and he and [ being
in agreement on all questisns of policy, as well as on all matters of fact, so far as was
developed by ovr conversation during the expedition.’’ (Congressional Record, Feb.
28, 1897, p. 2619.)
How badly Dr. Jordan jailed to understand his British colleague was made plain
by that gentleman’s report to his Government, issued May 10, 1897, in which Dr,
Jordan was taught the sober lesson that Prof. Thompson did not subscribe to him in
any question of policy respecting the management of the fur-seal herd and to no
essentail details of fact. (Report of Prof. D’Arcy Thompson on his mission to Bering
Sea in 1896, dated Mar. 4, 1897; U.S., Nov. 3, 1897.)
Now that Dr. Jordan has given public evidence of his utter inability to understand
what his own field associate on the seal grounds in 1896 intended to say or do, I believe
I have a good right to show that Dr. Jordan has made an equally grave blunder in
regard to what I did on the seal islands in 1872-1874, and is equally incompetent to
understand what I have said. In the final report of his investigation above men-
tioned he devotes a large space to the subject of my work on the census of the fur-
seal herds in 1872-1874, and in this space endeavors to show that I was ‘‘merely
guessing,’ and making “‘Mr. Eliott wholly devoid of mathematical sense, or else
must have failed to appreciate what his figures really meant.’’ ;
In Dr. Jordan’s preliminary report of 1896 (Treasury Department Doc. No. 1913)
he alludes to this census work of mine in no such language, and mildly doubts the
probability of my figures being right. He does not in this report give me the warrant
to handle him without gloves which appears in this, his final report, and to handle
him at once on this question is both my pleasure and a public duty.
Let me describe my early mission and its auspices. I first set out in April, 1872,
for the seal islands to gather information and collect for the Smithsonian Institution.
When I arrived on the islands April 22, 1872, I landed there without the slightest
pressure from anyone or instructions to work out a case for lawyers and diplomats to
tinker over and botch. I was to get the data as to the life history of the fur seal by
observing that life on the ground, and to make as full a collection of the skins, skel-
etons, etc., as the circumstances of may living on the islands would permit.
I was received in the most cordial manner cn the islands by both Government and
lessee agenis; every facility given me to work, and everything that I questioned or
inquired into was answered and opened in perfect good faith and to the best of the
ability of those men. I quickly made myself acquainted with enough of the Russian
language so that I could freely get the personal ideas and facts possessed by the Aleuts
or natives bearing on the seals, thus checking my inquiries from one person to another.
I never was misinformed by design, and by so doing never permitted myself to be
deceived on that score. I devoted three consecutive seasons, 1872, 1873, and 1874,
to close biological study of the fur-seal life, spending the winter of 1872-73 on the
islands, so that I could see with my own eyes the entire routine of arrival and depar-
ture of the seals from their haunts on the islands. The result of these studies was
first briefly epitomized and published by the ‘Treasury Department in 1874,
finally, when I found that I could not arrange my private affairs so as to permit of
a two years’ absence from home in order to study the Russian herd, I gave my elabo-
rated work of 1872-1874 to the late Gen. Francis A. Walker, at his solicitation, with
the sanction of the Smithsonian Institution, for publication as one of the initial
monographs of the Tenth Census, United States of America.
In this monograph it became imperative to omit much detail in the line of my
record of daily observations on the rookeries, because if it were all incorporated the
volume would be too bulky, compared with the other monographs ahead, for the
funds of the Census Office to print; therefore my original colored rookery maps and
hundreds of notes and illustrations, carefully drawn from life, were excluded very
reluctantly by the authorities, and only then because they believed that I had covered
the ground fully, even in their abridged form. When I suggested to Prof. Baird
that all of the details of my chapter on the census of the seals—pictures, maps, and
all—should be incorporated, he replied, saying that I had made it clear enough and
easily understood in the abridged version.
Repeatedly, since the publication of that monograph in 1882, has this question
of the population of the fur-seal rookeries on the Pribilof Islands been raised in my
presence by naturalists of far greater ability than Dr. Jordan, and I have never failed
to satisfy them of the substantial soundness of my views and figures. Now that
53490—_14——_4
50 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
*
Dr. Jordan at this late hour attempts to impeach their integrity I propose to impale
his sophisms, assumptions, and misstatements on a few pointed facts.
_ Dr. Jordan says (p. 77): ‘‘The next attempt at enumeration was made in 1872-1874
by Henry W. Elliott, special agent sent by the United States Treasury Department to
investigate the condition of the herd. He followed the same general method inaugu-
rated by Capt. Bryant, finding the shore extent and width of the rookeries and
allotting a certain space to each individual animal. He, however, worked out the
plans in much greater detail.’’ This is a deliberate misstatement of fact. Capt.
Bryant made an estimate in 1870 of the area and extent of the breeding grounds of
the Pribilof Islands, when, at the time, he had never laid his eyes on a single rook-
ery on St. George Island and had seen but three of the seven breeding grounds on
St. Paul, and these he saw through a telescope from the deck of a steamer. He then.
made the assertion that ‘‘there are at least 12 miles of shore line on the island of
St. Paul, occupied by the seals as breeding grounds, with the average width of 15
rods. There being about 20 seals to the square rod, gives 1,152,000 as the whole num-
ber of breeding males and females. Deducting one-tenth for males leaves 1,037,800
breeding females.’’? He then proceeded to estimate the St. George seals at ‘‘about
one-half the number of St. Paul.”
By the very nature of things this estimate was a mere guess. The author of it never
saw one-hundredth part of the area he figured on, and he did not know enough of
the animals, and, for that matter, never knew enough to understana that placing
20 of them on a square rod of superficial area was a ludicrous expansion of their real
method of hauling on the breeding grounds. It was the frank and good-natured
personal admission cf the old man, Bryant, to me, when I went up with him on the
same steamer to the islands in April, 1872, that he did not know anything definite
about the subject; that he was merely guessing, as any old whaler might calculate
“dead reckoning” in a fog, that caused me to set so promptly to work when I arrived,
ona preliminary topographical survey of the area and position of each breeding ground
ou the islands, as well as making surveys of the entire shore lines of both. But I
had no idea as I began the work and completed it, in so far as the landed area went,
of making a census of the seals upon the line of Capt. Bryant’s speculation, because
1 early saw that there were so many variations in the sizes of the seals, the irregular
massing and uiumassing of the harems, that the plan of locating just so many adult
seals to a given area was impracticable.
But as I hung over these rookeries day after day I became impressed with the fact
that no matter whether the mother seals were present on the ground or absent on
their food excursions their pups, or young ones, never left the immediate area of
their birthplace on the rookery up to a time in the season not later than the 10th
or 20th of each July; that if I counted them in a given area during that period I
should then know just how many cows belonged to it, and only by taking the pups as
my guide could I get at the real number of females. The males were steadfastly on
the ground all the time, and then a general estimate for the number of virgin females
could be made upon the ratio of this pup count, as it was a basis of the birth rate
of the entire herd.
While this subject grew upon me, I called the attention of my associates on the
island (St. Paul, 1872-73) to it. One of these gentlemen, Mr. William Kapus, was
an unusually well-educated man (the company’s general manager) and a man of
affairs as well. He took deep interest in the solution of this seal-space problem as
I presented it to him in the following form; also Dr. Kramer, the surgeon, another
cultivated, scholarly man, aided me in the inquiry:
1. The seals haul out on these breeding grounds with great evenness of massing—
never crowded unduly here, or scattered there—so evenly that if suddenly every
mother were to appear at the height of the season there would be just room enough
for all, without suffocating or inconveniencing their lives on the rocks.
2. That in estimating the number of seals in the breeding grounds we must make
the number of pups present at the height of the season the unit of calculation, because
their mothers are never all present at any one time, uot half, and at many times not
one-third of them are; that the height of the breeding seasun is between July 10 and
20 annually.
Upon these two fundamental propositions I stirred up a vigorous discussion and
examination as to their truth or untruth among the white men then on the islands,
of South Island especially, late in 1872, and until the close of the season of 1873 the
settlement of this question was left open. Then each and every white man on the
islands at that time (there were nine of them) subscribed heartily to the truth of these,
my assumptions, as a true working hypothesis.
Now, what does Jordan say about this particular law of even distribution on the
rookeries which I formulated in 1872? Before I quote him I want to say that Jordan,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 51
when he landed on the Pribilof Islands for the first time in his life, July 8, 1896, saw
nothing but a ghostly remnant of the life I was observing and studying in 1872-1874;
the few seals that have in declining generations survived and were wandering about
over the edges of those immense areas of deserted hauling grounds of 1872, and had
ranged themselves in widely scattered and irregularly massed harems on fringes of
the abandoned rookery slopes of 1872, became to his inexperienced eye ‘‘a great many
thousands” and ‘‘a strong nucleus.’’ Never having seen what I saw, he became
deeply impressed with the form of what only aroused my pity in 1890, as it had stimu-
lated my wonder and admiration in 1872-1874. With this wretched understanding
and loaded to the gunwale with it, Jordan says in regard to my basic proportions as
above cited:
“‘One who is familiar with the nature of the breeding grounds can not help feeling
that in the foundation of this law Mr. Elliott did not have the picture of the rookeries
before him. Had he traveled over the length and breadth of the rookeries, as was
done in 1896 and 1897, he never would have proposed such a law; that there should be
as many seals to the square rod on the jagged and broken lava rocks of Kitovi or on
the broken slopes of Gorbatch, where the animals are now, and must have then been
separated by bowlders weighing tons, should be the same as on the smooth sand flat
of Tolstoi or the level slope of Hutchinson Hill is, on the face of it, impossible.”’
Just because I had traveled over these rookeries day in and day out, when seals were
there and when absent, was why I recognized this law of distribution, and I will safely
venture to say that I have taken two steps to Jordan’s one in this work on the rookery
grounds: with every fissure and imbedded lava rock (these loose ‘‘bowlders weighing
tons” on Kitovi and only few such ‘‘bowlders” on Gorbatch), I am familiar, and I
found to my surprise, at first, that Kitovi was an ideal massing ground for the breeding
seals, and Gorbatch also; that these jagged rocks nearly all deeply imbedded in the
detritus of the cinder and lava slopes, carried more seals than if they were perfect
plane surfaces. Wherever I found a miniature lava butte on these breeding grounds
(they are all of volcanic superstructure) that the seals could not scale or otherwise
occupy, the area of the same was deducted from the sum of square feet belonging to
the ground, and I never made the ‘‘blunder of assuming the same distribution every-
where,” by taking this precaution, and in the following way: First, I carefully located
the herds as they lay on the several breeding grounds during the height of the season,
1. e., between July 10 and 20, which I discovered to be the time in 1872, this location
was rapidly and accurately made on a land chart of the rookery ground prepared early
in the season and before the seals had hauled out. By having these charts all ready,
with the stations from which my base lines and angles were taken, all plainly in my
view when the seals hauled out, it was a simple thing to place the bearings of the
massed herds on the chart; the reef and Gorbatch grounds made a busy day’s work,
and no more for me, because thus prepared; the same of Zapadnie. ‘Tolstoi easily
finished in half a day; same of Lukannon, same of Kitovi, Polavina a short day’s
work, while Novastoshals, or the large Northeast Point breeding ground, took the
best part of two days. The St. George rookeries were handled in even shorter time
by this method.
Not content with assuming that I had not traveled over the rookeries as he had,
Jordan proceeds to ignore the written record of my work in regard to counting the pups.
On page 79 of his report he makes the gratuitous assertion that I did not know that
all the breeding seals were not present on the rookeries at any one time during the
height of the season. Mark his language, which my published work in 1880 disproves
every word of: ‘‘But of these things, Mr. Elliott was not aware. He was content to
assume that all the cows were there.”’
at do I say about these cows, published 16 years before Jordan ever saw a cow
seal and then for the first.time on the Pribilof rookeries? ‘‘The females appear to
go and to come from the water to feed and bathe quite frequently after bearing their
young, and usually return to the spot or its immediate neighborhood, where they
leave their pups.” * * * Again I say, ‘‘A mother comes up from the sea, whither
she has been to wash and, perhaps, to feed for the last day or two.’? * * * (Mono-
graph, Seal Islands of Alaska, p. 39; Washington, 1880.) And still worse for Dr.
Jordan, on pages 104 and 105 of the same monograph, Fish Commission edition, 1882,
appears the still more explicit proof of his deliberate inability to give credit to truth.
What better impalement of Jordan can be devised than these words of mine: ‘‘The
umbilicus of the pup rapidly sloughs off, and the little fellow grows apace, nursing
to-day heartily, in order that he may perhaps go the next two, three, or four days
without another drop from the maternal fount; for it is the habit of the mother seal
to regularly and frequently leave her young on this, the spot of its birth, to repair for
food in the sea. She is absent by these excursions, on account of the fish not coming
in-shore within a radius of, at the least, 100 miles of the breeding grounds, through
intervals varying, as I have siid, from a single day to three or four, as the case may be.”’
52 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
And with this published record of my thorough understanding of the truth that
the cows are not present all the time, as early as 1872-1874, in his hands, Dr. Jordan
deliberately attempts to rob me of that credit which naturalists all over this world
have given to me and still give for my accurate work on these islands. I say, ‘‘he
attempts,’’ and I say it advisedly, for that is all it amounts to.
From this unjustifiable misrepresentation Dr. Jordan proceeds to make an analysis
of my figures of the population of the seal rookeries, as published in 1872-1874 and
enlarged upon by me again in 1880. Now he steps upon ground of legitimate criti-
cism, and 1 am more than ready to meet it. With reference to my figures (Monograph,
Seal Islands, p. 61), he says: ‘‘Waiving for the moment the method of obtaining
these figures, we may remark that they are not easy to understand. Of this total ‘of
breeding seals and young,’ Mr. Elliott in the same connection tells us that 1,000,000
‘are young.’ There must then be an equal of mothers, or 2,000,000 adult breeding
females and their pups. To this must be added the young 2-year-old cows that are
included, though not present. Mr. Elliott has himself given us an estimate of these.
Considering of the 1,000,000 pups born 500,000 are females, he says, ‘that at least
225,000 of them safely return in the second season after birth.’ This, therefore,
gives us a total of 2,225,000 females and young in the complete estimate of 3,193,420,
leaving 868,428 animals which can only be accounted for as breeding bulls. This is
impossible, and yet no other explanation of the discrepancy is at hand.”’
This is exactly quoted as it stands in Dr. Jordan’s final report, page 79, and if it
were not for the deliberate misstatement that ‘‘Mr. Elliott in the same connection
tells us that 1,000,000 ‘are young’’’ there might indeed be ‘‘no other explanation of
the discrepancy” at hand. But “‘in the same connection” I do not say anything of
the kind about only 1,000,000 pups being born out of this grand total on the Pribilof —
Islands; on the contrary, on page 61 (Monograph, Seal Islands), I present a carefully
tabulated statement of the exact ratio of seal life on the several breeding grounds of the
Pribilof Islands, summing it up by the square feet of sea margin, multiplied by the
average depth as ‘‘grand sum total for the Pribilof Islands (season of 1873), breeding
seals and young, 3,193,420,”’ saying as I do so, that these figures as above, show this
total. Then I proposed to open another and distinctly separate enumeration of the
nonbreeding, or bachelor seals, which I clearly declare entirely outside of any basic
calculation, having no initial point, like the breeding seals; and I close this summary
of the seal life on the seal islands on the following page.
Then I take up under an entirely different caption an entirely different question.
I take up then the question of ‘‘The increase or diminution of the seal life, past,
present, and prospective.’’ I enter upon a purely speculative theme, and do not
attempt to speak except in broad, general terms. Taking up that subject in this con-
nection, and not in conjunction with the statement of facts preceding it, I enter upon
a hypothetical expression of what I believe the loss of life sustained by the young
seals amounts to. I use the broad, general assertion that ‘‘1,000,000 pups, or young
seals, in round numbers,”’ are annually born upon these islands of the Pribilof group
every year.’’ Naturally to point my speculation in figures of loss, which follows, it
is better and easier to say ‘‘1,000,000” than 1,296,710, which would be the exact line
of figures if the speculation was treated as a matter based upon fact. But I merely
assume that half of the pups get back as yearlings next year, and that assumption is
as well or better illustrated by a general figure than a specific one. The result is pre-
cisely the same anyway, and really has in either case of exact or general figures the
same value. In my own mind at the time I was inclined to think that fully one-half
of these pups did not get back, and so I preferred the general or indefinite figure
rather than to strain an exact division of the pups into a vague theory. Jordan
himself is guilty of this fusion of fact and theory repeatedly in this report. But I
never have permitted it in my work.
Dr. Jordan proceeds to make himself still more erroneous in assumption. He says:
“But if these figures were in themselves reasonable we must still take exception to
the method by which they were obtained. * * * On his method of surveying
the rookeries, Mr. Elliott has given us practically no data.”
The stupidity, or else the efirontery, of this statement as to my giving him no data
can be well understood by reference to the elaborate charts of these breeding grounds
which are published in my report of 1890. (H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.)
These surveys were so elaborate and so full of detail that Gen. Walker in 1880 was
unable to publish them in the Census Monograph, owing to lack of funds for their
preparation, and I reluctantly inserted a small series of indeterminate pen-and-ink
sketch maps to illustrate the general idea, but in 1890 I took them up to the islands
with me and placed my work of that season on them in turn, making in this way the
soy ey contrast of the condition of 1872-1874 with that of 1890 that could have been
evised.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 53
Unlike Dr. Jordan, I am not a barber’s apprentice in topographical work. I served
three summers under the best of topographers in the field, 1869-1871, inclusive, doing
exactly such work as this on the seal islands; i. e., making original surveys of un-
mapped districts in the Rocky Mountain region. Until I made my surveys of the seal
islands, in 1872-1874, there was nothing on the maps that faintly resembled the area,
the contour, or the topography of the Pribilof group. The Russian charts of them
were perfect caricatures and the American copies no better.
So good were my charts of St. Pauls Island that a surveying party of the United
States Coast Survey, when it landed there in July, 1874, asked for and received from
me copies of it, which they did not alter in the slightest noteworthy degree after spend-
ing a week on the ground, and it was shortly after published by the Coast Survey
Office, with scant credit to me, its author. However, I care nothing for that, and I
only mention it because Dr. Jordan calls in one of his subordinates to appear as a swift
witness against me as a surveyor. Jordon says: ‘‘Of these maps Capt. Moser, in his
hydrographic report on the islands, made certain tests. Of Mr. Elliott’s shore line
he says: ‘It was a bad misfit and rarely stood the test of an instrument angle.’ He
further says of the topography of the maps that ‘it is so vague and indefinite that it is
next to impossible to do anything with them. I should call them sketches.’ ”’
It will do Jordan good and take the conceit out of this Capt. Moser to know that
these charts of mine stood the test of instrument angles to the entire satisfaction of
Capt. J. G. Baker, U.S. R. M., and Lieut. (now Capt.) Washburn Maynard, U.S. N.,
in 1874, and Capt. Colson, U.S. R. M., in 1890. Each and every one of those trained
hydrographers expressed their approval of these charts and their surprise at the accu-
racy with which I had plotted the shore lines. Capt. Maynard, in 1874, went all over
the rookeries with my detailed charts of the same, made in 1872-73, and between us,
there, we verified and corrected every one of them, so that these records which I made
in those years can not be whistled down the wind by any inexperienced or jealous
man or men.
Following this attempt to destroy the sense of my chart work (on p. 80), Jordan
raises a question, and then answers it, as usual, wrong. He says: ‘‘To each one of the
7 of the 10 rookeries of St. Paul Island Mr. Elliott ascribes an average width of 150 feet.
Two of the remaining breeding grounds have an average width of 100 feet each and
the third 40 feet. * * * Whatever the average width of each rookery may have
been, it was certain it was not the same for all. Neither now nor at the past times
Tolstoi, Polovina, Vostochin, the Reef, Kitovi, Lukannin, and Zapadin had the same
average width. The 150 feet is a guess and that only.”’
A guess, and that only! Indeed. The utter ignorance of the method of my work
which Dr. Jordan assumes, or really is afflicted with, can be well understood when
I take up, for instance, the case of Tolstoi, to show how easy it is for certain people, like
Jordan, who, having ears, hear not; and eyes, see not. On page 38 of my 1890 report
which was in Jordan’s hands when he first started for the seal islands, appears the
following detailed explanation of each and every step taken by me in surveying each
and every rookery as well as Tolstoi:
Detailed analysis of the survey of Tolstoi rookery, July 10, 1910.
[Sea margin beginning at A and ending at D.]
Square feet.
800 feet sea margin between A and B, with 80 feet average depth, massed... 64, 000
400 feet sea margin between B and C, with 60 feet average depth, massed..... 24, 000
1,600 feet sea margin between C and D, with 10 feet average depth, massed.. 16, 000
Jag E has 300 feet of depth, with 40 feet average width, massed.............- 12, 000
Jag F has 100 feet of depth, with 40 feet average width, massed...........-.- 4, 000
Jag G has 120 feet of depth, with 40 feet of average width, massed..........-.- 4, 800
ROL Maceaeci lee ia mas 5. Sas seh es uaa set pe ae a ids, a tS aay 124, 800
The annexed colored chart! that this legend illustrates carries all these stations
and base line points in detail. Every topographical feature is faithfully indicated
on it, and these specialized lines of average depth were drawn over these sections
of the herd as it lay upon the ground on that day and date—the proper time of the
season.
Now, in order that this detailed analysis of Tolstoi can be summed up in one
compact sensible expression I take the entire leneth of its sea margin, 2,800 feet,
and divide the entire sum of its square feet of massed area, 124,800 feet, by it; that
1 Not printed.
54 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
enables me to say, ‘‘July 11, 1890, Tolstoi has 2,800 feet of sea margin with 444 feet
of average depth—124,800 square feet of superficial area, making ground for 62,400
breeding seals and young.”
- Here is the result in detail of my survey of Tolstoi in 1872, which was verified by
myself and Capt. Washburn Maynard, United States Navy, m 1874:
Detailed analysis of the survey of Tolstoi rookery, July 15, 1872.
[Sea margin beginning at A and ending at D.]
‘ Square feet.
1,000 feet sea margin between A and B, with 350 feet average depth, massed.. 350,000
400 feet sea margin between B and C, with 150 feet average depth, massed..- 60,000
1,600 feet sea margin between C and D, with 30 feet average depth, massed... 48, 000
Three thousand feet sea margin on Tolstoi breeding ground and 458,000 square
feet in it, making ground, in round numbers, for 225,000 seals.
It will be noted that in this Tolstoi summary for 1872 I ignore the real presence of
8,000 square feet, and deliberately reduce that estimate of seals from 229,500 to 225,000,
because I never ran the risk in my work of 1872 and 1890 of being a foot or two ahead
of the real average. I carried this cautious reservation all through my surveys of
each and every rookery, and this is the reason why Capt. Maynard, my associate in
the work of 1874, makes his estimate, based upon this survey, of the sum total of
Pribilof seal life so much higher than mine. He declared that he was satisfied from
close personal supervision of taking all our land angles in 1874 that I was safely inside
of the real limit of supervision and that the figures of the survey were conservative
and right. He was then, as he is now, a skilled mathematician and hydrographer,
and he had the right to his opinion based upon the figures of that careful work. Yet
Jordan has the sublime impertinence in 1898 to sneer at this unbiased, careful survey
of 1872-1874, by saying ‘‘the 150 feet is a guess, and that only.’’ (P. 80, note.)
I used these figures of 1890 in detail for Tolstoi because I do not give the detailed
analysis or figures of 1872-1874 (only the summary) in my 1890 report of its sea margin
and square feet, viz, ‘3,000 feet of sea margin, making ground for 225,000 breeding
seals and their young,’’ not deeming it necessary to produce so many detailed figures
when my charts for both seasons were in full evidence in the published work of 1890.
As with Tolstoi, so with every other rookery on the Pribilof Islands. But Jordan,
holding all this incontestible proof of careful survey in his hands, can not “verify
Mr. Elliott’s surveys of the rookeries.’’
Jordan also, in this connection, has been careful not to quote the reason why I
made these elaborate charts in 1872-1874. Ii he did, he would render his method
of counting the seals, or rather guessing at the exact count of individual bulls, cows,
and pups, 1dle and abortive. I said in 1874, speaking of my law of uniform distribu-
tion of breeding seals op the rookeries: ‘‘This fact being determined, it is evident
that just in proportion as the breeding grounds of the fur seal on these islands expand
or contract in area from their present dimensions, the seals will increase or diminish
in number.’’ How well my charts of 1890, laid upon those of 1872-1874, tell that
story. How futile the rambling and self-contradicting seal-counting work of Jordan
to express the truth. Listen to Jordan himself, on page 101. He unwittingly trips
himself there on this very point: ‘‘The only reliable basis of enumeration has been
found and determined. ‘This is a count of live pups.’’ (This is what I published in
1872-1874.) Then on page 341, part 2, Jordan hamstrings himself in the following
language: ‘‘It is evidently impossible to make an accurate census of the seals on
St. Paul Island, because on the great rookeries, as the Reef Torbatch, Tolstoi, and
Zapadin, no one can either estimate or count the cows (sic); nor can one do it at Polo-
vina, because there is no one point of view where the whole rookery is visible; even
the bulls can be only roughly estimated.’’ Very true, Dr. Jordan; but why does
Dr. Jordan, on page 83, part 1, call in this remarkable witness to his own inability
to reason on his own lines of argument? ‘In the same year (1879) Mr. Beaman
records, under date of June 10, that ‘there were a couple of thousand bulls’ on Polo-
vina rookeries, when Mr. Elliott estimates fully 10,000 in 1874.”
I never made the blunder of attempting to count all the bulls, all the cows, or all
the pups on any rookery in 1872-1874. The utter stupidity of such a step never
entered my head. It never did in 1890, even when the ragged remnant of the great
life of 1872 was before me. It has only remained for Jordan and his job lot of assistants
to race up and down these desolated breeding areas, in their idle attempts to do so,
and the record of the self-contradiction of their own work bristles with the folly of it
on a score of pages in his report.
I can not ask for space here to express the rapid succession of erroneous assump-
tions and studied misstatements which are strung on the wire of this report—that I
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 55
shall gain later—but I will pick Dr. Jordan up on one more point, in conclusion.
On page 80 Dr. Jordan says: “ But aside from the question of accuracy in the surveys
themselves, Mr. Elliott has assigned an impossible space to each individual seal.
His unit of space is 2 square feet to each animal, young or old, or 4 square feet for
the cow, ignoring the pups. * * * Inastanding position she (the cow) would need
at least 3 square feet, but as the cows are constantly moving about and coming and
going to and from the sea, it is impossible to limit one to such space.”’
At this point, and in this connection, Jordan may be pardoned for his inability to
understand the massing of the breeding seals in 1872-1874, when there were seven to
ten times as many of them as contrasted with their number when he first saw them
in 1896. In 1890, when I landed on the seal islands after a continuous absence from
them for 16 years, the sight of their abandoned and shrunken grounds impressed me
instantly; not so were the newcomers, the Treasury agents who traveled up with me;
they, like Jordan, only saw ‘‘thousands of seals—many thousands,’’ and it was really
hard to get them to appreciate the gravity of the condition of the herd. I told them
on the Ist of June, 1890, that they would not get the quota of 60,000, and not a man,
agent of company or Treasury, or a native, for that matter, then agreed with me on
the islands. But by the end of the month they saw the truth as I had declared it.
Here is what I published in 1872-1874, relative to the seal unit of space, and it is
clear enough to men who have reasoned to the line with me on the ground itself; to
men like Capt. Maynard, United States Navy, 1874, and William Kapus, general .
manager of the lessees in 1872-1873, and all of their official associates who were with
them at that time:
“*Rookery space occupied by single seals.—When the adult males and females, 15 or 20
oi the latter to every one of the former, have arrived upon the rookery, I think an area
a little less than 2 feet square for each female may be considered as the superficial space
required by each animal with regard to its size and in obedience to its habits; and this
limit may safely be said to be over the mark. Now, every female or cow on this 2 feet
Square of space doubles herself by bringing forth her young, and in a few days, or a
week, perhaps, after its birth the cow takes to the water to wash and feed and is not
back on this allotted space one-half of the time again during the season. In this way
is it not clear that the females almost double their number on the rookery grounds
without causing the expansion of the same beyond the limits that would be actually
required did they not bear any young at all? For every 100,000 breeding seals there
will be found more than 85,000 females and less than 15,000 males; and in a few weeks
after the landing of these females they will show for themselves—that is, for this
100,000—fully 180,000 males, females, and young, instead, on the same area of ground
occupied previously to the birth of the pups.
“It must be borne in mind that perhaps 10 or 12 per cent of the entire number of
females were yearlings last season and come up onto these breeding grounds as nubiles
for the first time during this season—as 2-year-old cows. They, of course, bear no
young. The males, being treble and quadruple the physical bulk of the females,
require about 4 feet square for their use of this same rookery ground; but as they are
less than one-fifteenth the number of the females—much less, in fact—they therefore
occupy only one-eighth of the space over the breeding ground, where we have located
the supposed 100,000. This surplus area of the males is also more than balanced and
equalized by the 15,000 or 20,000 2-year-old females which come onto this ground for
the first time to meet the males. They come, rest a few days or a week, and retire,
leaving no young to show their presence on the ground.
“The breeding bulls average 10 feet apart by 7 feet on the rookery ground; have
each a space, therefore, of about 70 square feet for an average family of 15 cows, 15
pups, and 5 virgin females, or 35 animals for the 70 feet—2 square feet for each seal,
big or little. The virgin females do not lay out long, and the cows come and go at
intervals, never all being on this ground at one time, so the bull has plenty of room
in his space of 70 square feet for himself and harem.
“Taking all these points into consideration, and they are features of fact, I quite
safely calculate upon an average of 2 square feet to every animal, big or little, on the
breeding grounds at the initial point upon which to base an intelligent computation
of the entire number of seals before us. Without following this system of enumeration
a person may look over these swarming myriads between Southwest Point and Nova-
stoshnah, guessing vaguely and wildly at any figure from 1,000,000 up to 10,000,000 or
12,000,000, as has been done repeatedly. How few people know what a million really
is. Itis very easy to talk of a million, but it is a tedious task to count it off, and makes
one’s statement as to ‘millions’ decidedly more conservative after the labor has been
accomplished.
“T am satisfied to-day that the pups are the sure guide to the whole number of seals
on the rookeries. The mother seals are constantly coming and going, while the pups
56 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
never leave the spot upon which they are dropped more than a few feet in any direc-
tion until the rutting season ends; then they are allowed, with their mothers, by the
old bulls to scatter over all the ground they want to. At this date the compact system
of organization and massing on the breeding grounds is solidly maintained by the bulls;
it is not relaxed in the least until on and after July 20.”’ [Transcript from the author’s
field notes of 1874. Nah Speelkie, St. Paul Island, July 12.]
Now, with this life study before him, proportioned to the exact attitudes, sizes, and
disposition of a harem of fur seals, what does Jordan say? Hear him: ‘‘It is true that
Mr. Elliott justifies in part his small unit of space by certain references to the coming
and going of the animals. He asserts that after the pups are born the ‘individual cows
are’ not on their allotted space one-fourth of the time, and that the females ‘almost
double their number on the rookery ground without expanding its original limits.’
But Mr. Elliott failed to grasp what this really meant. He sees in it only justification
for the unit of space, which he has assigned to the individual animals. It should have
called his attention to the fact that the breeding seals which he saw before him, and
which he was attempting to enumerate, were but a part and not the whole of the
rookery population.”’
It seems utterly incredible that any man with the least regard for the express
command of written directions like those which I have published, as above quoted,
could make such a ridiculous and senseless reduction of them. Dr. Jordan has,
however, done so, and here we have the evidence of his weakness in cold type.
In closing I can fitly say that the shame and ruin which overtook our cause of the
fur seals at Paris in 1893 was no sin of mine, and the continuance of that shame and
mummery of shallow experts on the rookeries in the Treasury and in the State De-
partment up to the close of Jordan’s work in 1898 was also against my protest. Now
that the curtain has rung down on this last seal commission farce of our Government,
with its harlequin show of branding baby fur seals on the islands, “‘ perfect agreement”
with England, and searching the seal sacks of our returning women from Canada and
Europe in New York, all to the utter indifference of the pelagic sealer, whom the
business was to hurt, it is to be hoped that a further confession of this impotence of
our people to meet the Canadians In open argument for some method of saving our
fur-seal herd from indecent and cruel slaughter may be avoided.
The responsibility for the ruin of the Pribilof herds primarily belongs to Benjamin
Harrison, James G. Blaine, and the two Fosters—‘‘ex-Gov.’’ Charles and the ‘“‘Hon.’’
John W. We had an admirable case and abundant information at our command, but
the two Fosters (par nobile fratrum!) ignored it, and put the whole question into the
hands of vaporing lawyers and ridiculous experts. They gave us the absurd Paris
“reculations” in 1893.
The steady continuation of this scandalous order on the seal islands since has been
made by the indifference of Grover Cleveland and the wretched egotism of Richard
Olney (had Gresham lived the tables would have been turned), ably supplemented
by the present administration.
The whole business since 1890 has been a scandal in our departments and an im-
position upon the taxpayers of the United States.
Henry W. ELuorr.
LAKEWOOD, Ouro, September 20, 1899.
Mr. Extrorr. It was this publication, as above, which opened the eyes of Secretary
John Hay and caused him to agree with my proposal made to him April 2, 1900, per
Hon. Theodore E. Burton (my Representative), and which led to my engagement
with him of April 30-May 3, 1900, by which the act of April 8, 1904, was secured by
my initiation, and by which authority he reopened this fur-seal case with Great
Britain April 16, 1904, with me as his adviser and expert in the premises.
In hearing No. 14, pages 1000-1001, July 30, 1912, House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor,
appears the following relation with regard to the census of 1872-1874:
Mr. Exuiorr. During the hearing of the Senate Committee on Territories on ‘‘Gen-
eral conditions in Alaska,’’ February 23, 1912, I was called upon by the chairman,
Senator William Alden Smith, to inform the committee how I made my enumeration,
of the fur-seal herd in 1872-1874, and the following statement and inquiries were made
to wit (pp. 17, 18, 19):
“Senator Hrrcncock. Are they unable to count the seals there?
“Mr. Witson. I could not really answer that question.
“‘Senator CHAMBERLAIN. I do not see how they could count them.
“Mr. Witson. It isa difficult matter to count them on the rookeries,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 57
“The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask Mr. Elliott if it is a difficult matter to count
them; he is an expert on the subject.
“Mr. Exuiorr. They can not be counted.
“Senator Netson. What is the amount of the herd now?
“Mr. Exxiorr. Nobody knows definitely. There may be 50,000, there may be
60,000, there may be 100,000. There is just a little thin line of life left.
“Senator Netson. What was the amount of the herd when the lessees took it—
the first lease?
“Mr. Exuiotr. Four million seven hundred and fifty thousand.
“Senator SHiveELy. What year was that?
“Mr, Extiotr. 1872.
“‘Senator SHrvety. And now you say there may be 50,000 or 100,000?
““Mr. Extiotr. Nobody knows.
“Senator Suivety. Well, what is your estimate?
“Mr. Exuiotr. My estimate is like theirs. I have not been up. there since 1890.
“Senator Survey. Is it a mere guess, and is it possible that there has been no
reduction?
“Mr. Exxiott. Since 1890?
‘Senator SHIVELY. Since 1872.
“Mr. Exxtiotr. Oh, no; no, indeed. We knew definitely——
“Senator Hrrcucock. You could count them, then, when you were up there, and
found that there were 4,000,000; why is it not possible’ that they can be counted now?
“Mr. Exurorr. I did not count them. I surveyed the area of the breeding grounds
upon which they rested, that area being definitely ascertained by a plane table sur-
vey. Into that superficial area I multiplied a composite unit of calculation. These
seals in lying upon this ground obeyed the natural law of distribution—so many to a
given area, never more here nor there, but uniformly distributed over this area,
whether it was large or small. That area being ascertained by a plane table survey—
a topographical survey—I multiplied into that superficial area a unit of space occu-
pied by t the composite seal, and that gave me 4,700,000.
“The CHarRMAN. For whom were you acting then?
“Mr. Exvuiorr. The Smithsonian Institute—the Government.
“The CuarrMAN. Under whose authority?
“Mr. Extiotr. The Secretary of the Treasury.
“Senator Hrrencock. Is that the only time you have ever estimated them?
“Mr. Exvtrorr. The second time I took the subject up was nearly 20 years later—
in 1890.
“Senator Hircucock. And what did you find?
“Mr. Exxiotr. I applied the same system, and I found 959,000.
“Senator Suivety. As against 4,000,000 on your first survey?
“Mr. Exuiorr. Yes. And since then they have been shrinking and shrinking,
and the London sales show in the last six or seven years that they have been killing
nothing but the dregs: there is practically nothing else leit.
“Senator Netson. What is your opinion about land killing?
“Mr. Exuiorr. The land killing is primarily responsible for the destruction of the
herd. I brought the proof—overwhelming-proof—heiore two committees of Congress.
“Senator Netson. That is the conclusion of the subcommittee which went up
there in 1903; we came to the conclusion that they not only ought to stop pelagic
sealing, but all land killing, in order to restore the herd.
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir.
“Senator Netson. Did not the Russians adopt that course?
“Mr. Exttotr. Certainly. They were compelled to do it. When there was no
pelagic killing of the herd, they destroyed the herd ,.by the same methods we employ
to-day.
“Senator Netson. For how long did they prohibit killing?
“Mr. Extiotr. Ten years.
“Senator Netson. And that restored the herd?
“Mr. Exziorr. Yes; although not to its full capacity.
‘Senator NELSON. ‘At that time, when the Russians took that course, there was no
pelagic sealing?
“Mr. Exttotr. They had never heard of it.
“Senator Netson. It was all land killing?
“Mr. Exutotr. It was all land killing.
“Senator Netson. And yet the Russians found it necessary to stop that altogether
to restore the herd?
“Mr. Exuiotr. Exactly. They were killing the male seals, as we have been doing
for 20 years. -
58 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
“Senator Netson. What was the age of seals killed last year?
“Mr. Extiott. They were mostly yearlings.
‘Senator Netson. What is the proper age to kill them?
“Mr. Extiotr. They should not be killed under 2 years of age.
“Senator Netson. And most of those killed last year were yearlings?
“Mr. Extiotr. Indisputably so. It is alla matter of evidence.
“Senator Sarvety. And when the Russian Government again allowed seal killing
they put strict limitations on the land killing?
“Mr. Exitiotr. They had autocratic power, but their experience taught them to
put that limitation on them.
‘Senator SHIvELy. But they did——
“Mr, Extiorr. Yes, they did; and they so preserved the birth rate by allowing the
necessary number of males to keep up the herd.
‘““The CHAIRMAN. You may go ahead with your statement, Gov. Clark.’’
In closing this topic, it 1s in order to submit an exhibit of the facts
which show us the cause of that commercial ruin of our fur-seal herd
which we now observe on the Pribilof Islands.
If it were not for these records elaborately and systematically
made on those desolate hauling grounds, which Elhott published in
1874 and 1890, it would be fairly impossible to get an adequate idea
of what an immense herd of fur seals was in existence when we took
possession of Alaska in 1867.
Then, when that idea is grasped, and it is made clear that ever
since 1857, up to the hour of 1867 when the herd became ours, this
wild life had remained at about a steady annual number of 4,700,000
seals of all classes, we ask: What have we done to reduce it, so by
this year of 1913 all that we find surviving of it are only 190,555 seals
of all classes ?
Why did we lose this herd, when the Russians easily kept it from
1857 to 1867 in that fine form and number ?
The answer is made easy in the light of the following facts:
I. It is a fact of indisputable record that the Russians never killed
or disturbed the female seals on the rookeries of St. Paul and St.
George Islands from start to finish of their possession of them.
II. It is a fact of indisputable record that from 1786-87 up to
1800 the Russians annually took from 120,000 to 60,000 young male
and yearling seals from these hauling grounds, and 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 North-
west coast Indians.
III. It is a fact of indisputable record that the Russians, beginning
in 1800 with an annual catch of 40,000 young male seals and year-
lings, by 1817 had the greatest difficulty in getting that number then,
and notes of protest against the killing on the islands were sent to
Sitka by the caretaker, Kazean Shaishnikov, of St. Paul Island,
urging the governor of the R. A. Co. to rest the seals from killing
for a term of years. No pelagic sealing was known to the Russians
during this period of any kind.
IV. It is a fact of indisputable record that while the protest of
Shaishnikov was noticed favorably by the governor, yet the. direc-
tors of the R. A. Co. at St. Petersburg did not consent; that they
renewed their orders to kill, and sent one of their number, Gen.
Yanovsky, out from St. Petersburg in 1818 to the seal islands,
charged with the business of examining into the cause of this loss of
surplus male life on the islands.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 59
V. It is a fact of indisputable record that Yanovsky, in 1820, after
spending the entire season of 1819 on the Pribilof hauling grounds
and rookeries, made a confidential detailed report which declared
that this immense decline in the life of the fur-seal herd was due
entirely to the annual killing of all of the young male seals and year-
lings which the drivers of the company could secure; he urged a
complete cessation of it for a term of years.
VI. It is a fact of indisputable record that this request of Gen.
Yanovsky was ignored by the directors, and the orders to get all of
the young male seals and yearlings were annually renewed;! and
VII. It is a fact of indisputable record that at the end of the season
of 1834, instead of getting 20,000 holluschickie, they secured, with the
“utmost exertion,’ only 12,000 ‘‘small” (yearling) seals; and that
with the end of this season’s work the herd was so reduced that the
directors were obliged to order a 10 years’ rest to all commercial kill-
ing on the islands, which went into effect in the summer of 1834, and
was faithfully enforced; so that by 1844 commercial killing was
resumed of a relatively small number, beginning with 10,000 to 13,000,
increasing gradually annually up to 1857, when this herd yielded that
year 62,000 “choice young male” seals, and the herd itself had
regained its natural and normal maximum number, viz, from 4,500,000
to 5,000,000 seals of all classes.
VIII. It is a fact that during all this period of decline and restora-
tion of the Russian herd from 1800 to 1857 there was nothing known
of, or hinted at, which is now so well known as “‘pelagic sealing.”
IX. It is a fact that when we took possession of the herd we eased
them to a corporation with a permit to take annually 100,000 young
male seals, or 40,000 more every year than had been the average
number taken by the Russian management since 1857.
X. It is a fact of indisputable record that by 1883 our lessees had
great difficulty in getting their quota this year of 100,000 ‘‘prime”’
3 and 4 year old skins; that they began to scour the hauling grounds
for them, and increased the rigor of that search and driving annually
thereafter.
XI. It is a fact of indisputable record that up to this time of first
difficulty since 1870, of getting annually 100,000 fine young male
seals, no pelagic sealing of the slightest consequence was in operation;
only six or seven small vessels, busy for a few weeks in the year, off
the Straits of Fuca and west coast of Vancouver Island, had appeared
in the sea up to the opening of the season of 1886.
(1) Therefore, in the light as above clearly and fairly thrown by
these records of past experience, we now know that the Pribilof herd
_
1 As Yanovsky’s report was a confidential paper, and as such seen only by the board of directors, we
haye no details beyond those given out, as below, and taken from the records of the administrative office
at Sitka. It is, however, very clearly stated that the excessive killing of young male seals is the sole cause
of the impending ruin of the herd, to wit: ‘
“Tn 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, ‘sekatch’ and half ‘sekatch,’ are left to propagate the species,
It follows that only the old seals are left, while if any of the bachelors remain alive in the autumn they
are sure to be killed the next spring. The consequence is that the number of seals obtained diminishes
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct.
“This view is confirmed by experience. In order to prevent the extinction of the seals it would be well
to stop the killing altogether for one season and to give orders that not more than 40,000 are ever to be killed
in any one year on the island of St. Paul, or more than 10,000 in any one year on the island of St. George.
“Mr. Yanovsky considers that if these measures are adopted the number of seals will never diminish.
The board of administration, although they concur in Mr. Yanovsky’s view, have decided not to edont
the measures proposed by him unless it is found that there is no migration of seals to the two small islands.
which are believed to exist to the south and north of the chain ofislands. * * *” [Letter of the secretary
of board of directors R. A. Co., St. Petersburg, Mar. 15, 1821, to Gov. Muraivev, Sitka, Alaska.]
60 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
was reduced to the very same commercial ruin by 1834 which we
now find our herd reduced to in 1913.
(2) And that this ruin of 1834, and again in 1913, was caused by
the very same close killing annually of all the young male seals, and
yearlings that could be secured by the greedy Russian contractors,
and in turn by our lessees.
(3) And that the Russians, to save and restore the herd, were com-
pelled to stop this excessive and improper killing in 1834, and suspend
any commercial killing on the islands for 10 years thereafter, or up to
1844-1846.
(4) And that the experiment of annually taking 100,000 choice
oung male seals, since 1870 up to 1890, by our lessees, as against the
‘abit of taking 60,000 annually by the Russian lessees, was a bad one;
and that this number of 100,000 ‘‘surplus male seals” was an exces-
sive and destructive killing, which has led to a complete elimination
of the breeding male life of the herd, as we see it to-day, and which
policy, if contmued, will surely exterminate the species itself.
DR. JORDAN'S RECENT ATTEMPT TO SHIELD THE ILLEGAL AND RUINOUS
KILLING ON THE SEAL ISLANDS BY THE LESSEES AND GOVERNMENT
AGENTS SINCE 1896 TO DATE OF DECEMBER, 1912.
This anxiety to shield the lessees from any criticism or punishment
for this ulegal work of killing young seals has been carried by Dr.
Jordan to the extreme limit of issumg through the Department of
Commerce and Labor, by the consent and approval of Secretary
Charles Nagel, a statement, on December 20, 1912, entitled ‘‘Eco-
nomic Circular No. 4,’”’ with this preface, as follows, by Mr. Nagel:
TRUTH ABOUT THE FUR SEALS OF THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS.
{Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Fisheries. Economic Circular No. 4, issued Dec. 20,
1912.}
A treaty was entered into July 7, 1911, by the United States, Great Britain, Japan,
and Russia, intended to prohibit pelagic sealing. In August, 1912, an act to give
full effect to the treaty was passed be Congress.
In view of these facts and of recent discussion as to the best method of management
of the fur-seal herd, the department determined to have a careful examination and
study made during the season of 1912. Mr. George A. Clark, secretary of the Fur Seal
Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and special investigator on the seal islands in 1909,
was sent to the islands for that purpose. The following statement, drawn up by him
and Dr. David Starr Jordan, commissioner in charge of fur-seal investigations in
1896-97, is based primarily upon Mr. Clark’s investigations of the past season. It
presents the important and essential facts so clearly that the department publishes
the statement for the information of all who are interested in the fur-seal question.
Instead of telling Congress and the people to whom it was sent
under the frank of the department the ‘‘truth,” it has told nothing
but untruth, and a few examples of the most flagrant and brazen
untruths will be submitted, as follows:
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID STARR JORDAN AND MR. GEORGE A. CLARK.
* * * * * * *
The fur seal is a polygamous animal. Steller, its discoverer, found it in a state of
nature in families numbering 8, 15, 50, and even 120 females to 1 male (p. 1).
This quotation of Steller, as above made by Jordan, who only saw
these animals during a few days in June, 1742, and then under cir-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 61
cumstances of great distress and anxiety for himself, is simply idle,
for no study of that life was ever made by ‘‘its discoverer,” or
could be.
* * * An exact count of the full birth rate of pups in 1912 showed an average
family of 60 cows to each bull, with idle bulls to spare (p. 2).
The official proof is in evidence of the fact that an ‘‘exact count”
of the ‘‘full birth rate of pups in 1912”’ was never made, since all the
attempts to make such a ‘‘count’’ in the seasons of 1901, 1902,
1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906 by trained, trusted agents were and are
all self-confessed failures, and are so recorded. (See Exhibit G,
postea.)
* * * Female seals are protected by law and custom from killing, and the
breeding seals are in no way disturbed. A definite breeding reserve of the young
males is marked and set aside from the animals first arriving in the spring before com-
mercial killing is begun. The 83-year-old males and the larger 2-year-olds are killed,
the younger and older animals found on the hauling grounds are released and returned
to the sea, the former to be the basis of the future quota, the latter to replenish the
stock of breeding males (p. 2).
That this ‘‘breeding reserve’’ has not been made and that yearlings
(not ‘‘larger 2 and 3 year old males’’) have been killed by thousands
and tens of thousands since 1890, up to date of 1913, is absolutely
proven in ExhibitS A, B, E, and F, and self-confessed therein (antea
postea).
* * * * * * *
The processes of land sealing do not contravene that natural law which decrees that
the fittest shall survive. The struggle for existence in the case of the seal occurs at
sea, where it gets all its food and where it spends the winter. The harsh conditions
of the northern winter constitute a sifting process by which the old, the weak, and the
inefficient are ruthlessly weeded out. Each animal returning to the islands in the
spring is physically and vitally the best of its kind (p. 2).
The ‘“‘harsh conditions of the northern winter’’ are never met by
the seals; they leave the Bering Sea and the North Pacific annually,
long before any ice appears there; they are in the same water as for
temperature and weather during December, January, February, and
March as they were in durmg June, July, August, and September
peer annually; they are off San Francisco, Cal., m December, off
‘ashington in March, and then go back to Behring Sea by June and
)
)
¢
July. ‘There is no “‘struggle for existence at sea,” such as Jordan
asserts. It is fiction, not ‘‘truth,’’? which he publishes.
Man’s selection for his own uses is not of the best, but of a given age or size, among
animals otherwise alike equally fit (p. 2).
The lessees have taken every young male seal from 2 years old
up to 4 years annually that they could find on the islands since
1896. If that is not getting all of the ‘‘best,’’ then nonsense is sense,
and Jordan is right. (See proof of this nm Exhibits A and B antea
and postea, where the full detail is given.)
At the time of the transfer to the United States the herd numbered about 2,500,000
animals. In 1896-1897 it numbered about 400,000 animals. It numbers in the sea-
son of 1912 about 215,000 animals (p. 3).
The fact that Jordan has not the slightest warrant for saying that
this herd only numbered in 1867 “about 2,500,000 animals” and im
1896-97 only ‘£400,000 animals” is set forth m detail by Exhibit
Aantea. The nonsense and bald assumption of his census of 1896-97
62 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
is clearly shown up there by the fact that 190,555 seals were found
alive in 1913, when, during all that period between—16 years—it
has suffered an annual average loss of 80,000 seals, there must have
been at least 1,000,000 seals alive in 1896-97.
The cause of the decline of the herd is found in the development of a rival form of
sealing, now known.as pelagic sealing, taking advantage of the migration journeys and
distant feeding habits of the seals (p. 3).
The chief ‘‘cause of the decline” is due to the illegal and mjurious
killing of all the young male seals that the lessees could secure annu-
ally from 1883 to 1913, inclusive, and continued during 1910, to its
merciful prohibition, August 24, 1912. (See Exhibits A antea and
B postea.)
The evil effects of pelagic sealing were early recognized and efforts made to stay the
development of the industry. The United States sought through arbitration with
Great Britain to establish jurisdictional rights in Bering Sea for the protection of the
herd, and, failing in this, by joint regulations formulated by the Paris Tribunal of Arbi-
tration in 1893 attempted to restrict and limit the pelagic hunting. - The regulations
failed of their object because of the long period of gestation and the distant feeding
and migration journeys of the animals. A joint commission of inquiry, including
British as well as American scientists, after two seasons of thorough investigation,
reached the agreement that the herd’s decline was due solely to the killing of females
involved in pelagic sealing and foreshadowed the abolition of pelagic sealing as the
only remedy. Incidentally, this commission exonerated the Yperations of land seal-
ing, which had been accused in 1890 of being concerned in the herd’s misfortune, from
responsibility for it (p. 4).
That ‘“‘jomt commission of inquiry, including British as well as
American scientists,” did not ‘‘reach the agreement that the herd’s
decline was due solely to the killing of females involved in pore
sealing,” and it did not even hint at an ‘‘agreement’”’ which fore-
shadowed the abolition of pelagic sealing. This is a falsehood, and
utterly inexcusable in its relation here, with its bald, self-confession
as such, in that ‘“‘jomt agreement” signed up by Jordan with his
British associates in the Department of State, November 16, 1897.
After long-continued effort, on July 7, 1911, the United States obtained the coopera-
tion of Great Britain, Russia, and Japan in a treaty abolishing pelagic sealing for 15
years. In this treaty the United States and Russia, as owners of the principal fur-seal
herds, agreed to pay to Great Britain and Japan 15 per cent each of the product of
their land sealing operations. This treaty went into effect with the season of 1912,
and as a result of its beneficent action it is estimated that 15,000 breeding female fur
seals reached the rookeries of the Pribilof Islands and brought forth their young in
security, which would, under the operation of pelagic sealing, have failed to reach
the islands or would have been killed on later feeding excursions. This fact in itself
demonstrates the cause of the herd’s decline and its capacity to restore itself if pro-
tected from further loss (p. 4).
This is the Hay-Elliott treaty of mutual concession and joimt
control with Great Britain, which Henry -W. Elliott drew up in
1904-1905, and which John Hay approved in March, 1905, and which
his sickness and death in July followimg prevented the ratification
of in June, 1905, at Ottawa; the lessees then came into power at
the State Department after Hay’s death; and, with the help of Dr.
Jordan and his ‘‘scientists,” prevented any action on it, until it was
forced out of the State Department by the Senate Committee on
Conservation of National Resources, February 4, 1911, and mto the
Senate, February 8, 1911, and then ratified there, February 15, 1911;
its terms being kept secret until Japan and Russia united in them,
July 7 1911.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 63
The essential consideration in the treaty is that the United States shall turn over
15 per cent of its land catch to Great Britain and a like percentage to Japan. The
original attempt to fix the period of suspension at the full life of the treaty was in effect
a repudiation of the treaty, and if carried through would undoubtedly have led to its
abrogation. With the treaty out of the way, pelagic sealing would naturally be
resumed. The Senate compromise at 10 years was little better. The final period
still violates the spirit of the treaty, because the United States can not justify the
suspension, even for this period, as necessary to any interest of the herd (p. 5).
Th's idea of “‘a repudiation of the treaty’? when that “‘close time”’
of 10 years was adopted by the Senate, is simply an unfounded and
fairly stupid one, when it is known that this treaty when first ratified
between Great Britain and the United States, carried a memorandum
attached to it, which ordered a ‘‘close time”’ of 10 to 12 years from
date of its ratification. Great Britam m 1905, and again in 1908,
and again in 1911, was willing to have a close time for 10 years.
Why? Because it was a wise and, self-evidently, a good measure to
adopt.
In addition to the contingent danger arising from possible dissatisfaction and abro-
gation of the treaty, the suspension has a direct and vital relation to the herd. The
removal oi the surplus males of a herd of polygamous animals is not merely possible,
but in the case of the fur seals it contributes to their well-being. The fur seal is
intensely gregarious. The females are crowded together at the critical period of the
birth of the pups in groups, or harems, each in charge of a pugnacious and dominating
male. This male is an®animal of 500 pounds weight, while the female is an animal of
80 pounds, and the young at birth a weak thing of 12 pounds. The bull, in the ordi-
nary round of harem discipline, is constantly rushing about and among his cows, while
in warding off the attacks of the surrounding idle bulls he is rough and reckless in
the extreme. The rookeries were in the season of 1912 at a minimum condition as
to crowding and fighting, and yet they suffered a considerable loss of pups suffocated
at the moment of birth through the overlying of the mother, some neighbor cow, or
the trampling of the bull. This cause of loss was in 1912 about 2 per cent of all born.
It is beyond the power of man to eliminate this cause of loss. He can minimize it by
keeping down the stock of fighting bulls. To cause an increase of fighting or other
source of disturbance upon the rookeries will make this loss mount up in geometric
ratio (p. 5).
This absurd, untruthful, and utterly unfounded description of
loss and injury to the herd by fighting bulls is fully laid bare and
exposed as such in Exhibits A, antea, and G, postea. It has been the
faked story which Dr. Jordan first attempted to use during 1910 (in
conjunction with this man Clark) as a shield for the injurious and
illegal close killing of all the young males by the lessees since 1896.
“They ought to be killed, all they could find,” because ‘‘ they would
only grow up and fight,” “‘tear the cows to pieces,” and ‘‘trample
their helpless young to death.” Here is his faked story:
Dr. EvERMANN (reading):
“Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, chairman of the fur-
seal commissions of 1896 and 1897, and who, in company with his associates, spent the
seasons of those two years on our seal islands and on the Russian islands, visiting
every rookery and every hauling ground and studying the fur seal from every impor-
tant point of view. Besides spending several months actually on the islands, he
spent many more months in collating and studying the data resulting from his own
observations and those of his associates and in a study of the literature of the subject.”
6. Ii the surplus males are not killed, they not only become valueless for their
skins, but they grow up into bulls not needed for breeding purposes, but which never-
theless pass on to the rookeries, where they do great damage to the breeding herd by
fighting among themselves for possession of the cows, often tearing the cows to pieces,
so injuring them that many of their pups are stillborn, trampling the helpless pups
to death, exhausting their own vitality and virility, and rendering themselves less
potent than they would be without such useless struggle—in short, causing infinite
trouble and injury to the rookeries without a single compensating advantage.
64 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. Does that involve the conclusion of anyone else? Are those con-
clusions 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. 519, 521, Apr. 20, 1913, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department
of Commerce and Labor.]
In 1913, therefore, at least 6,000 superfluous males must be left to grow up as bulls.
This must go on for five years, and in the end there will be in the years immediately
following 1917 a total of 30,000 adult bulls. In 1912 no more than 1,500 bulls were
needed by the herd. It can by no possibility use more than 3,000 bulls in 1917 and
not over 4,000 in 1920. In the period following 1917 there will be 9 idle bulls for 1 in
service. The inevitable damage to the rookeries which this condition of fighting will
entail can be but faintly realized even by those who in 1896-97 witnessed a somewhat
similar state of the rookeries due to a shorter period of suspension, 1891-1893. In
1896-97 there were an adult idle bull and two young bulls for each active bull. The
conditions which we are to face in 1917 and thereafter is a condition where the ratio
Me Ge a linstead of 3to1. These idle bulls once saved must live out their natural
ife (p. 6).
The nonsense and untruth of the above, the positive untruth and
abject nonsense of it, can be fully appreciated by reading the facts
set forth in Exhibit A antea; concluding pages.
Each one of the 30,000 useless bulls will have carried, as a 3-year-old, a skin worth
$40 to the Government. These skins will be lost—a sheer waste of $1,200,000. And
this is a minimum figure, as the product of the hauling grounds will increase steadily.
Furthermore, the cutting off of the regular supply of sealskins for five years will affect
the market. Sealskins will be superseded by other furs, and when the Government
is ready to seek an outlet for its increased quotas of 1918 and 1919, the market will be
found sluggish and the prices low (p. 6).
This is the argument of Simple Simon, who killed the goose which
laid the golden egg. See Bxhibit A, antea, for illustration of it fully,
in concluding pages.
This remarkable circular of untruth fitly ends with the following
“foxy” statement:
The amendment suspending land killing has provided for the human residents of the
Pribilof Islands, by allowing a limited amount of killing for fresh meat for natives’
food. There is, however, other animal life on the islands which, through a century of
habit, has come to depend upon the products of the killing field for an important part
of its sustenance. Most important among these animals is the Arctic blue fox. The
fox herd is smal], but is, animal to animal, as valuable as is the fur seal. In the 40
years of our control 40,000 peltsof blue foxes have been taken. The herd is capable of
indefinite expansion through increase of food supply. In summer, when the birds:
are present, the foxes are fairly well provided for, but in winter their chief dependence
is in the carcasses of the seals left on the killing fields. They were beginning to starve
and eat one another on the Pribilof Islands at the time the junior author left there this:
fall. The killing fields were absolutely bare. It is certain that the blue-fox herd
will be decimated before spring, and if the suspension of land killing is continued for
the full five years, unless artificial feeding is substituted—a thing difficult of accom-
plishment—the blue-fox herd will be wiped out or at least reduced to a point so low
that its restoration will be a matter of years.
The birds, of which there are thousands upon thousands on the islands, are not
economically useful to man, but it may be added that they, too, are affected by this
unnecessary, harmful, and wasteful suspension of land killing (pp. 6, 7).
The best answers which we can make to this idle and fairly puerile
demand for seal slaughter that the fox herd is dependent on seal
killing for its existence is the following official entry made by Ezra W.
Clark, United States special agent, who has been busy on St. George
Island for nearly 10 years, studying the fox question in that time:
from every angle.
ae
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 65
Maj. E. W. Clark makes this official entry in the St. Paul log or
journal after long experience with the foxes of St. George:
Tuespay, December 17, 1901.
The season of trapping was a little under two weeks, taking off Sundays and the
holiday. All the men came into the village for one or two days during the trapping.
The fox herd on this island seems to have increased slightly rather than diminished
during the last two or three years. I learn that the seal meat saved and put out last
year as food for the foxes was scarcely tasted by them. Evidently they did not suffer
for the want of food. Year before last I understand that no seal meat was offered
them, but the last year and this year there was trapping, and this year the animals
seemed a trifle more abundant than last. I am by no means satisfied that an artificial
supply of food is necessary on this island for the maintenance of the herd, or even for
_ its increase (p. 160).
With the sending out of this improper circular, as above described,
the old influences got busy and actually persuaded President Taft to
send a message on January 8, 1913, to Congress (S. Doc. No. 997, 62d
Cong., 3d sess.) in which he urged Congress to repeal the close-time
law of August 24, 1912, and does so on this improper and untruthful
statement of Dr. Jordan in the premises.
No attention was paid to the request of Mr. Taft, and he was very
promptly informed by leading Senators that they would not change
the law.
_ This did not prevent that discredited scientist from making another
visit to the Senators and Members by sending them the following
letter (with an inclosure of a reprint of his “economic circular”
above cited, in the Nation), to wit:
OFrFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
LELAND StTanrorD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
Stanford University, Cal., March 31, 1913.
On January 25 the writers called to your attention the need of repeal in the matter
of certain fur-seal legislation of August 24, 1912. The Sixty-second Congress, in its
third session, took no steps in the matter. On the other hand, it cut from the sundry
civil bill the appropriation for the maintenance of the force of Government agents on
the fur-seal islands, reducing this force to a single caretakeron eachisland. The bill
failed because of the veto of the President and must come up again in the special
session. As the act suspending land sealing wasa blow aimed directly at the integrity
of the treaty of July 7, 1911, suspending pelagic sealing, so the recent act is a blow
aimed at the defense of the herd on its breeding grounds, inviting the raiding of the
the islands. We have put the bearing of both these measures clearly in a letter that
is being mailed to each Member of the Sixty-third Congress. A copy of this letter is
inclosed. Will you not take up this matter anew and urge upon Congressmen, per-
haps the President himself, the need of rational action in the interests of the fur seals?
Davip STARR JORDAN.
GEORGE ARCHIBALD CLARK.
Soon after this letter was generally received (Apr. 10, 1913) the
Secretary of Commerce put a quietus on the subject by directing the
Bureau of Fisheries to dismiss the ideas advanced by Dr. Jordan and
carry out the law to the letter.
53490—_14—_5
66 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Parr 2.
[The census of the Alaskan seal herd on the Pribilof Islands as taken July 10-20, 1913, by United States
Special Agents Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, under authority and by instruction of the House
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]}
CENSUS OF KETAVIE AND LUKANNON ROOKERIES.
Field notes to accompany chart and survey of condition of Ketavie and Lukannon rookeries, St. Paul
Island, Pribilof group, Friday, July 11, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents of
the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.)
(The condition of this rookery when comparison is made with that
of 1890 is founded upon the published official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pub-
lished as H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 31, 32, 33.)
We have taken up this morning, the survey of the Ketavie rook-
ery, beginning at station C of the 1890 survey.
We find at station C and station B a complete elimination of every
seal reported thereon in 1890. The rookery ground then occupied
in 1890 as well as that of 1874 is now all overgrown with thick sod,
flowers, mosses, grasses, and lichens, which cover all the rocks—a
complete elimination of all of that 1890 fur seal life within limits of
stations A and B. Then, from stations B to C2 southeast, reaching
to the extreme point, we find nothing but one solitary 6-year-old bull
and a single cow, in a rocky pocket of the surf wash, together with one
cow swimming in the water nearby.
As we proceed to station D of the survey of 1890 we find that the
entire sum of seal life in existence between is confined to a series of
pocket harems along the rookery margin just above the surf wash.
These harems aggregate 8 bulls and about 325 cows.
At the extreme foot of station D, looking out to sea, on a surf-
washed shelf, we see the first ‘‘pod”’ of holluschickie on this rook-
ery—some 50 or 60 small male and yearling seals all told.
From station D to station E, or the southern foot of the amphi-
theater of 1890, the seal life has been quite eliminated, and is con-
fined to a series of pocket harems, consisting of 20 bulls and about
700 cows.*
We now take up the amphitheater at the base of Lukannon Hill.
That small yet beautiful and impressive concentrated view of animal
life, which in 1874 invariably caused the most casual observer to
exclaim, ‘‘What a sight!” is totally deserted, with the exception of
three harems, with about 65 cows at the foot and right north of sta-
tion E; a thick growth of grass and flowers is now on the ground
where nothing but seals once laid, and reaching right to the water’s
edge.
On the extreme northern surf-washed point of this amphitheater,
or station F of the 1890 survey, we observe a pod of about 50 hol-
luschickie, being the second batch which we have seen this morning.
From this point to station G of the 1890 survey, embracing the
entire sweep of the Lukannon rookery, we find the life of 1890 con-
1 Touching this relation of the cows to the bulls in 1890, here, as contrasted with 1874, the following is
pertinent (p. 37, H. Doe. No. 175, 54th Cong., Ist sess.), to wit: ‘‘On Lukannon this last summer, while
there were two-fifths as many cows as in 1872, yet the bulls did not average more than one-fifteenth of the
number they showed in 1872. On Keetand it was no better; if anything a shade worse, no young bulls
anywhere offering service or attempting to land. This undue proportion of the sexes, and the general
apathy of the breeding bulls, is characteristic of all these rookeries to-day. * * * In 1872-1874 it was
just the opposite.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 67
fined to a series of bunched harems, immediately under Lukannon
Hill, which, by a careful estimate, shows from 35 to 40 bulls and
some 2,200 to 2,500 females. We notice an entire absence of the
“‘yolsecatchie,’”’ and we see but three or four 6-year-old bulls on
the outskirts, and none in the water. The sweep from the foot
of Luckannon Hill to the westward, upon which the great bulk
of this rookery existed in 1874, and again in 1890, is completely
deserted, not a single harem being in existence there at the present
time. The entire field of 1874, under our feet here on the slopes
of Lukannon Hill, which was polished bare of every vestige of vegeta-
tion, and the rocks also, of all lichens, is now carpeted with a thick
sod between the rocks, and the yellow, brown, and gray rock lichens
that have grown since; also the lines of 1890 are nearly as well
covered with this vegetation, and unite in giving eloquent proof of
a complete elimination of the seal life thereon.
We have looked into every harem to-day on these two rookeries;
we have not observed any evidence of fighting between the bulls,
even where they are close and within reaching distance of each other;
nor has there been any attempt of the outside bulls to enter the
harems and engage in combat, although a few bulls—bulls without
cows—are lying close on the outskirts of the harems. The same
understanding exists to-day between these breeding bulls as it did in
1874, to wit, that having fought for their stations and having
occupied them between the 4th of May and the middle of June, by
common consent and universal agreement they stay right there,
undisturbed by one another thereafter during the breeding season.
The proof of it is under our eyes at every harem that we have in-
spected and its neighbor.
This remarkably striking elimination of that life of 1890, to say
nothing of the astounding shrinkage from 1874, is one of the most
impressive sad exhibitions that the investigator finds on these
islands. The mighty roar and the rumble on these rookeries of that
early time are now succeeded by a low and indistinct murmur and in-
termittent gurgling, gutteral growls.
During this survey, looking down into those harems in the pockets
of Ketavie, in the amphitheater, and under the brow of Lukanin
Hill, where these notes are now being made, we have been unable to
see the slightest evidence of a dead or a trampled pup or of a cow
or cows torn or killed. - These harems being directly under our eyes,
we have a clear view of the pups, looking up and along the sweep
occupied by them. Many pups are newly born, evidently only a few
hours or minutes, as the placentas or afterbirths lay bloody and fresh
1 The following official record was made of this seal lifeon Lukanin and Keiavie in July, 1874 (see Mono-
graph Seal Islands: Elliott):
“The next rookeries in order can be found at Lukanin and Ketavie. Here is a joint blending of two
large breeding grounds, their continuity broken by a short reach of sea wall right under and at the eastern
foot of Lukanin Hill. The appearance of these rookeries is like all the rest of them, peculiar to themselves.
There is a rounded swelling hill at the foot of Lukanin Bay, which rises perhaps 160 or 170 feet from the
sea, abruptly at the point, but swelling up gently from the sand dunes in Lukanin Bay to its summit at
the east and south. The great rookery rests upon its northern slope. Here is a beautiful adaptation of the
finest drainage, with a profusion of those rocky nodules scattered everywhere over it, upon which the
female seals so delight in resting.
“As we stand on the bald summit of Lukanin Hill we can turn to the south and look over to Ketavie
Point, where another large aggregate of breeding seals comes under our eyes. The hill falls away into a
series of faintly terraced tables, which drop down toa flat. That again abruptly descends to the sea at
Ketavie Point.
“Between us and the Ketavie rookery is the parade ground of Lukanin, a sight almost as grand as is
that on the reef, which we have feebly attempted to portray. The sand dunes to the north and west are
covered wita the most luxurious grass, abruptly emarginated by the sharp abrasion of the hauling seals.”
68 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
before our eyes; but if a pup has perished from trampling, or if a
cow has been killed by the fighting of bulls, we are unable to see it.
It certainly is not in evidence to-day, and it never was in evidence in
1874 or 1890. The habits of these animals certainly have not been
changed.
LUKANNON and KEETAYIE
Kookexies: ST Rut Ts\4
ere Sly 44, G03, by HWEationt
mma RE Goachev, Asets Ub Com:
Teg. Gere. ” Eee.
Tawkow now Man
Surdhueis ok
Nuwber wma 110 6a%iow
the breeding Sears ow Liwkennow KY
+to- f aes *
Hetiveen Ste FE ail Aye G: Host. eo ¢.
— o Keotwie Wt.
377: gd 2
Kesravis Koa:
a
Lewd Lotat 2-4] Fs. 3hq Use $324 “ps,
Review from the summit of Ketavie rock—The entire field occupied
by breeding seals on this rookery in 1874, and with the exception of a
small fringe of pocket harems which we have noted on the surf
margin of the rookery—this entire field of 1890 is abandoned by seals.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 69
The ground of 1874 is now fairly covered with a coarse, thick sod,
and that of 1890 with a finer grass, rapidly passing into the sod afore-
said, while the once seal-polished rocks are now yellow and brown
with lichens. This picturesque and fine breeding ground 1s practically
desolated. There are no holluschickie in sight, either hauled out for
shelter in the pockets of these harems or anywhere visible on the
rookery margin. There are no polsecatchie in the water and no idle
bulls in the rear of these harems.1_ The seals that are existing look
well. The bulls all appear to range between 7 and 8 years to 15 years.
There is no very old or superanuated bull thus far observed.
To recapitulate: For Lukannon and Ketavie rookeries, July 11,
1913, we find on Lukannon 40 bulls, 2,500 cows, 2,300 pups; Ketavie,
32 bulls, 1,191 cows, 1,000 pups; season of 1890, on Lukannon, 900
bulls, 36,000 cows, 33,250 pups; season of 1874, on Lukannon,
4,880 bulls, 85,000 cows, 78,000 pups; season of 1890, on Ketavie,
340 bulls, 13,500 cows, 12,500 pups; season of 1874, on Ketavie,
4,730 bulls, 80,000 cows, 72,500 pups.
CENSUS OF LOWER AND UPPER ZAPADNIE ROOKERIES.
{Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of lower Zapadni rookery, St. Paul Island,
Pribilof group, Saturday, July 12, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents House
Committee on Expenditures of the Department of Commerce. }
(The condition of the rookery when comparison is made with that
of 1890is founded upon the published official survey made by Henry
W. Elbott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly published as
H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Con:, 1st sess., p. 31, 32, 33.)
We begin this morning at station C of the 1890 survey, and from
there, as we go to station O, no sign of seal life is apparent. From
station O, as we proceed down, every vestige of the herd has dis-
appeared from this ground to the bight and clear back to station A
of the 1890 survey. Jag A has completely disappeared; not even a
fringe or suggestion of it at the sea margin in the bight. The grass
and flowers actually cover every foot of this area of the 1874 and
1890 surveys right down to the surf-beaten margins of the bight.
Under foot here is the heaviest sod that we have thus far trodden
upon in this whole area of abandoned seal territory on the island
rookeries, showing that the entire disappearance of the herd from
this ground must have taken place at least 10 years ago, save solitary
or scattered seals which might have been in existence then.
We now pass over to jag B of the 1890 survey, and we find about
12 bulls and 125 cows, with no idle bulls around and no “‘polsecatchie”’
in sight. This area of 1890 is completely desolated, save that thin
fringe of cows and bulls on the surf margin.
1 The loss of life here in 1890, as contrasted with its form in 1874, is described officially as follows (p. 36,
H. Doce. 175, 54th Cong., Ist sess.) to wit:
“The unusually heavy loss sustained by Ketavie rookery and the other absence of the holluschickie, or
killable young male seals, where they trooped in platoons of tens of thousands in 1872-1874 upon the Lukan-
non parade ground made the view from Lukannon Hill an exceedingly sad one at any time last summer.
Grass is now growing thickly down to the very water’s edge over the parade grounds here of 1872-1874, and
creeping into the rookery grounds also. This grass, which grows up over the abandoned seal parade, is
quite different in fiber and color from that which has never been disturbed or destroyed by the hauling
seals. It is quickly noted and marked as ‘‘seal grass,” since it grows closer and thicker and softer than all
surrounding grasses. There is no contradiction possible of its silent though eloquent testimony of the
hour—of that absence of those swarming herds which so impressed me in 1872-1874 as they restlessly swept
hither and thither over these grassy grounds and deserted fields of 1890.* z
* Glyceria angustata.—It is conspicuous as a band of yellow emarginating that green ground of the indi-
genous growth of grasses and flora where the seals have never been for a long, long time.
70 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Passing from jag B, we now proceed southward to jag C of the 1890
survey. We find here that the seal life has entirely disappeared, save
at the foot of jag C, where we observe carefully about 1,500 cows and
count 50 bulls. In between jag B and jag C of the 1890 survey we
find some 1,500 holluschickie, chiefly yearlings, with 2-year-olds and
a few 3-year-olds.
We now proceed from this location across to jag D of the 1890
survey. Here we find the entire breeding area of 1890 is completely
abandoned, and, as we go to jag E, that area also is abandoned, save
a fringe of 7 or 8ragged harems, with 15 or 20 bulls and about 300
cows.
From thence we proceed around to jag F, and at the foot of that
seal-breeding Seon of 1890 is a massing of some 1,250 to 1,500 cows
and about 45 or 50 bulls. Between these breeding seals of E and F
were hauled out about 1,200 or 1,400 holluschickie. This entire
area between F and E, which was occupied in 1890 by breeding seals,
has been completely abandoned by them, with the exceptions
above noted. Grass, flowers, and lichens cover all this ground and
the rocks right down to the water’s edge.
From jag F we now proceed to jag G and jag H, at Zapadni Point,
and we find that the life of 1890 has faded out to about 2,000 cows
and about 60 bulls, all being right at the surf margin, as usual; and
running out to the point and under the drop we find seven or eight
ragged harems, or in all it makes an aggregate grouping of about
2,000 cows and 60 bulls, which we consider a very liberal estimate of
this life that survives between jag G and the Point. A single polse-
catch, the first seen to-day in the rear, was noticed by us. ‘Three
or four 6-year-old bulls constitute the entire surplus bull life at this
point of the finish of our survey of Lower Zapadni.
Recapitulation.—As we finish this survey of the breeding life on
Zapadni in contrast with its condition of 1890, and before we close
these notes, with the chart of 1874 under our eyes, we are impressed
with the fact that the herd of 1874, in its dwindling to its condition
of 1890, was decimated fully two-thirds; but the decrease since 1890
to the present hour shows a loss of nearly nine-tenths of the figures
of 1890. Great as that loss was in 1890, from the figures of 1874, it
impossible not to be impressed with the still greater decline up to
ate.
During this survey, and indeed, for that matter, since we began
this work, we have taken notice of the Coast and Geodetic Survey’s
series of painted rocks as they stand here to-day, which those engi-
neers marked and numbered in 1897 to declare the outer limits of that
hauling of breeding seals during that season; we have noted that they
closely follow the lines of Ellictt’s 1890 survey. These white-num-
bered records made of seal hauling on the rocks in 1897 show that
even then the high-water points touched by the seals in 1890 were not
much receded from. It would seem from the record of this Coast
Survey’s making that the diminution since 1897 was far more marked
than that which took place between 1890 and 1874; it is unnecessary
to say that the immense shrinkage from 1890 to date is emphatically
and indisputably confirmed by this painted-rock record of the Coast
and Geodetic Survey. The hauling grounds of Zapadni where the
holluschickie swarmed in 1874 on this magnificent nee were not,
Ba Meet ey
My ‘i
Towzr ZAPADNIE RooKweRy
(To face page 71.)
ert Bis andy B,
Moko “Bua Vv
St Furs island. uty sh, 443.
Urppr LAPADNIE ROOKERY
‘ St Pants stand, July 12: 1949,
Such by Hing WBUisty nd AE Getlagher.
Agents Ho. Com Earp. Dept Camenoree
Analyses of tho Numbers rnd Livertiow ok the Beeediwwg Sess
Vi ;
re apes Leagndww Frookor-4 -
Ahad v8 wotkin
Ba te AAO
bes, oh ufo co
Araslysis Sho Numurs ond Sioertvow of ev Prwediwd, Sus
ew JuoworZiogadwie Rockery
woe @ ry lie Moree! wo!
Hens:
AKowr 0 wah Tag AL, Ma 2 mo¥eing,
Brow “ va B peu we AM dewVbo,
Fue f Jas cco eROOmes”
oat, eran
Aw Aye hes aku pw 15 das, bode
Og: Aw nS
=
and cows.
woo «
Jeo «m=
sSoo -
2000 ~
409 7
“i oper!
B Lupa fot
LR yin
Jaw
reece
Zeer auwse Deog.
53490—14.
(To face page 71.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 71
of course, entirely abandoned in 1890, but the small hauling of
nonbreeding seals in 1890 has dwindled away this year to even a
fainter record of less than 2,500 holluschickie assembled, and that,
too, after being undisturbed since the beginning of the season (being
the first time not driven in the last 33 years), for we are creditably
informed that no driving and no visit to this rookery has been made
this year by the natives or agents in charge prior to our survey to-day.
Upper Zapadni.—We now take up the lmes of Upper Zapadni.
Beginning with the inital point of the survey of 1890, at the imter-
section of the sands of Zapadni beach, we find the whole of that
breading life elimimated between this station up to the foot of sta-
tion B. Then we find a series of continuous ragged harems at the
surf margin ending at station V, which gives us a total of about
4,500 cows and about 110 bulls and about 40 vagrant and spent
bulls, all hauled just north of station V, with a few holluschickie..
In this entire circuit, as we traverse it foot by foot, we have seen no
sign of the polsecatchie. We have seen three or four 6-year-old
bulls only. This stretch from Zapadni Bight to station V is perhaps
as vivid an illustration of complete extinction of the breeding lines
of 1874 as can be found on the rookeries of the island. Indeed, it is
a most melancholy exhibit as we pass over it to-day. We have seen
no holluschickie, except four or five, with those old whipped or va-
grant bulls, hauled out just beyond station V, as above noted."
To recapitulate—For Lower Zapadni rookery, July 12, 1913, we
find 182 bulls, 5,425 cows, 4,850 pups; for Upper Zapadni rookery,
July 12, 1913, we find 110 bulls, 4,500 cows, 4,100 pups.
On both Zapadnis season of 1890 there were 1,600 bulls, 60,000
cows, 54,000 pups; season of 1874 there were 12,514 bulls, 220,000
cows, 198,000 pups.
CENSUS OF TOLSTOI ROOKERY.
[Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of Tolstoirookery, St. Paul’s Island, Pribilof
group, begun Saturday, July 12, 1913, 2 p’clock p. m., by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special
agents House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pub-
lished as House Document 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session,
pages 31, 32, 33.)
From station A to station E, of the 1890 survey, all seal life has
been completely eliminated. At the base of station E is a small
1 The contrast of that fine condition of Zapadni in 1872-1874 with what it was found to be in during
1890 is made as follows (H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess., p. 40), to wit:
“Tt is impossible to convey that full sense of utter desolation which the vacant seal area of 1872 on this
fine rookery aroused in my mind last July (1890) while then making my survey of it. Grass and flowers
Springing up over those broad areas of the once occupied hauling grounds here, where in 1872-1874 thousands
upon thousands of young male seals hauled out and oyer throughout the entire season, and were undis-
turbed by any man, not even visited then by anyone, except myself. No one then ever thought of such a
thing as coming over from the village to make a killing at Zapadni, there being more seals than wanted
close by at Tolstoi, Lukannon, and Zoltoi Sands. This not alone, but that splendid once clean-swept
expanse of hauling grounds in English Bay between the Zapadnis and Tolstoi is all grass grown to-day
(except over its areas of drifting sands) with mosses, lichens, and flowers interspersed. It is entirely
barren of seals, save a lonely pod under Middle Hill.
_ “Lower Zapadni is certainly the roughest surfaced breeding ground peculiar to the seal islands, and
if is a curious place on which to view the seals as they locate themselves, for as you walk along they sud-
denly appear and disappear as they haul and lay in those queer little valleys and canyonshere which have
been formed by lava bubbles of the geological time of the elevation of St. Paul Island from the sea. But
to-day so scant is the massing of the breeding seals here that that unbroken mighty uproar which boomed
out from them in 1872 is wholly absent. It is positively quiet, save the subdued sheep-like calling of the
females and the lamb-like answer of their offspring.”
72 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
batch or mass of harems which will total about 1,500 cows and
about 40 bulls; and, lying on the hill slope this side of them, there are
about 800 to 900 holluschickie, all down in, under, and lying on the
old breeding ground of 1874, which is totally abandoned.!
We now proceed from station E to stations F and G. No polse-
catchie and no idle bulls on this ground are seen. Right at the base -
of jags F and G of the 1890 survey is an aggregate of seven harems
with not to exceed 200 females. There are about 20 vagrant bulls
bunched in with the holluschickie that we have just enumerated.
At the foot of station B, and over to station C of the 1890 survey,
we find a series of harems right at the surf margin which will carr
about 3,500 cows and about 60 bulls. That completes the sum total,
area, and location of the hill-side rookery life of to-day as compared
with the survey of 1890. Here we have seen a pod of 25 or 30 va-
grant bulls closely lying in with the holluschickie which we have men-
tioned, the largest group of such spent male life that we have seen
thus far. There are no polsecatchie in the rear and no idle 6-year-
old bulls. There is no evidence of fighting, and the sandy area imme-
diately under station B, and reaching to station B, carries no sign of
a dead pup, or sand worm mortality, although these seals are resting
on that sand just as they did in Dr. Jordan’s time; and the stones
which were placed there later by Mr. Judge are-now wholly surrounded
where not hidden by the sand which he thought he had covered by
planting those rocks. From station C of the 1890 survey is the same
belt margin to-day under the Tolstoi Bluffs that was existent there
in 1890. It has a fringe of harems irregularly sprawled just above
the surf wash and carries, it is safe to say, at least 3,500 to 4,000
cows and about 50 bulls, with no idle bulls of any description in
sight or any polsecatchic—not one.
To recapitulate—For Tolstoi rookery, July 12, 1913, we find 157
bulls, 8,750 cows, 7,850 pups. ‘Season cf 1890, there were 850 bulls,
31,200 cows, 28,000 pups: season of 1874, there were 6,450 bulls,
115,000 cows, 105,000 pups.
The particular manner and method followed by Elliott in getting
these figures of seal population for those large rookeries of 1872—
1874, and relatively large in 1890, when contrasted with their form
in 1913, is fully set forth by the details given in House Document
No. 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, pages 29-57 inclusive.
The following illustration of bis survey of Tolstci in 1872, and again
1 The Tolstoi hill slope of 1872 is described, in 1874, by Elliott (pp. 53-54, Monograph Seal Islands) as follows:
“Directly to the west from Lukannon, up along and around the head of the lagoon is the seal path road
over which the natives drive the holluschickie from Tolstoi. We follow this and take up our position on
any one of the several lofty grass-grown sand dunes, close to and overlooking another rookery of great size.
This is Tolstoi.
«“We have here the greatest hill slope of breeding seals on either island, peculiarly massed on the abruptly
sloping flanks of Tolstoi Ridge, as it falls to the sands of English Bay and ends suddenly in the precipitous
termination of its own name, Tolstoi Point. Here the seals are in some places crowded up to the enormous
depth of 500 measured feet from the sea margin of the rookery to its upper boundary and limitations; and,
when viewed as I viewed it in July (1872), taking the lines and anglesas shown on the accompanying sketch
map, I considered it with the bluffs terminating it at the south, and its bold sweep which ends on the sands
of English Bay, to be the most picturesque, though it is not the most impressive, rookery on the island—
especially so, when that parade ground, lying just back and over the point, and upon its table rock surface
is reached by the climbing seals as they hau! up from the sea below. :
“Tf the observer will glance at the map he will see that this parade ground in question lies directly over
and about 150 feet above the breeding seals immediately under it. * f
“From Tolstoiat this point, sweeping around 3 miles to Zapadine, is the broad sand reach of English Bay,
upon which and back over its gently rising flats are the great hauling grounds of the holluschickie, which
I have indicated on the general map and to which I have made reference. * * * Looking at the myriads
of bachelor saals spread out in their restless hundreds and hundreds of thousands upon this ground, one
feels the utter impotency of verbal description, and reluctantly shuts his note and sketch books to gaze
upon it with renewed fascination and perfect helplessness.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 73
in 1890 will suffice as to the details for all of the 17 breeding grounds
on the Pribilof Islands, which were covered in the same manner,
to wit, he says (Hearing No. 4, Committee on Expenditures in the
Department of Commerce and Labor, July 11, 1911, pp. 186-187,
190-191, and 192):
But I had no idea as I began the work and completed it, insofar as the landed
area went, of making a census of the seals upon the line of Capt. Bryant’s speculation,
because I early saw that there were so many variations in the sizes of the seals, the
irregular massing and unmassing of the harems, that the plan of locating just so many
adult seals to a given area was impracticable.
But as I hung over these rookeries day after day I became impressed with the fact
that no matter whether the mother seals were present on the ground, or absent on
their food excursions, their pups, or young ones, never left the immediate area of
their birthplace on the rookery up to a time in the season not later than the 10th or
20th of each July; that if I counted them in a given area during that period I should
then know just how many cows belonged to it, and only by taking the pups as my
guide could I get at the real number of females; the males were steadfastly on the
ground all the time, and then a general estimate for the number of virgin females
could be made upon the ratio of this pup count, as it was a basis-of the birth rate of
the entire herd.
While this subject grew upon me, I called the attention of my associates on the
island (St. Paul, 1872-73) to it. One of these gentlemen, Mr. William Kapus, was
an unusually well-educated man (the company’s general manager), and a man of
affairs as well. He took deep interest in the solution of this seal-space problem as I
presented it to him in the following form; also Dr. Kramer, the surgeon, another cul-
tivated, scholarly man, aided me in the inquiry:
1. The seals haul out on these breeding grounds with great evenness of massing—
never crowded unduly here, or scattaren there—so evenly that if suddenly ever
mother were to appear at the height of the season there would be just room enounh
for all, without suffocating or inconveniencing their lives on the rocks.
2. That in estimating the number of seals in the breeding grounds we must make
the number of pups present at the height of the season the unit of calculation, because
their mothers are never all present at any one time, not half, and at many times not
one-third of them are; that the height of the breeding season is between July 10 and
20 annually.
Upon these two fundamental propositions I stirred up a vigorous discussion and
examination as to their truth or untruth among the white men then on the islands,
or South Island especially, late in 1872, and until the close of the season of 1873 the
settlement of this question was left open. Then each and every white man on the
islands at that time (there were nine of them) subscribed heartily to the truth of
these, my assumptions, as a true working hypothesis.
Just because I had traveled over these rookeries day in and day out, when seals
were there and when absent, was why I recognized this law of distribution, and I
will safely venture to say that I have taken two steps to Jordan’s one in this work
on the rookery grounds; with every fissure and embedded lava rock (these loose
““‘bowlders weighirg tons” on Kitovi and only few such “‘bowlders” on Gorbatch),
I am familiar, and I found to my surprise, at first, that Kitovi was an ideal massin
ground for the breeding seals, and Gorbatch also; that these jagged rocks, nearly al
deeply imbedded in the detritus of the cinder and lava slopes, actually carried more
seals than if they were perfect plane surfaces. Wherever I found a miniature lava
butte on these breeding grounds (they are all of volcanic superstructure) that the
seals could not scale or otherwise occupy, the area of the same was deducted from
the sum of square feet belonging to the ground, and I never made the ‘‘blunder of
assuming the same distribution everywhere,’”’ by takirg this precaution, and in the
following way: First, I carefully located the herds as they lay on the several breed-
ing grounds during the height of the season, 1. e., between july 10 and 20, which I
discovered to be the time in 1872; this location was rapidly and accurately made on
a land chart of the rookery ground prepared early in the season and before the seals
had hauled out. By havirg these charts all ready, with the stations from which my
base lines and angles were taken, all plainly in my view when the seals hauled out,
it was a simple thing to place the bearings of the massed herds on the chart; the
reef and Gorbatch grounds made a busy day’s work, and no more for me, because
thus prepared; the same of Zapadnie. ‘Tolstoi easily finished in half a day; same of
Lukannon, same of Kitovi, Polavina a short day’s work, while Novastoshals, or the
large Northeast Point breeding ground, took the best part of two days. The St.
George rookeries were handled in even shorter time by this method.
74 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
On page 38 of my 1890 report, which was in Jordan’s hands when he first started
for the seal islands, appears the following detailed explanation of each and every
step taken by me in surveying each and every rookery as well as Tolstoi.
Detailed analysis of the survey of Tolstoi rookery, July 10, 1890.
[Sea margin beginning at A and ending at D.]
Square feet
' 800 feet sea margin between A and B, with 80 feet average depth, massed.. 64,000
400 feet sea margin between B and C, with 60 feet average depth, massed.. 24, 000
1,600 feet sea margin between C and D, with 10 feet average depth, massed.. 16, 000
Jag E has 300 feet of depth, with 40 feet average width, massed.....-....... 12,000
Jag F has 100 feet of depth, with 40 feet average width, massed.............. 4, 000
Jag G has 120 feet of depth, with 40 feet of average width, massed.........- 4, 800
Total square teeter 27 5. bake bce: ape eee De ee 124, 800
The annexed colored chart ! that this legend illustrates carries all these stations
and base line points in detail. Every topographical feature is faithfully indicated
on it, and these specialized lines of average depth were drawn over these sections of
the herd as it lay upon the ground on that day and date—the proper time of the
season. :
Now, in order that this detailed analysis of Tolstoi can be summed up in one com-
pact sensible expression I take the entire length of its sea margin, 2,800 feet, and
divide the entire sum of its square feet of massed area, 124,800 feet, by it; that enables
me to say, “July 11, 1890, Tolstoi has 2,800 feet of sea margin with 444 feet of average
depth—124,800 square feet of superficial area, making ground for 62,400 breeding
seals and young.”’
Here is the result in detail of my survey of Tolstoi in 1872, which was verified by
myself and Capt. Washburn Maynard, U.S. N., in 1874:
Detailed analysis of the survey of Tolstoti rookery, July 15, 1872.
{Sea margin beginning at A and ending at D.]
Square feet.
1,000 feet sea margin between A and B, with 350 feet average depth, massed-. 350, 000
400 feet sea margin between B and ©, with 150 feet average depth, massed.. 60, 000
1,600 feet sea margin between C and D, with 30 feet average depth, massed.. 48, 000
Three thousand feet sea margin on Tolstoi breeding ground, and 458,000 square
feet in it, making ground, in round numbers, for 225,000 seals.
It will be noted that in this Tolstoi summary for 1872 I ignore the real presence of
8,000 square feet, and deliberately reduce that estimate of seals from 229,500 to
225,000, because I never ran the risk in my work of 1872 and 1890 of being a foot or
two ahead of the real average. I carried this cautious reservation all through my sur-
veys of each and every rookery, and this is the reason why Capt. Maynard, my asso-
ciate in the work of 1874, makes his estimate, based upon this survey, of the sum total
of Pribilof seal life so much higher than mine. He declared that he was satisfied
from close personal supervision of taking all our land angles in 1874 that I was safely
inside of the real limit of supervision and that the figures of the survey were conserva-
tive and right. He was then, as he is now, askilled mathematician and ny atoe ee
and he had the right to his opinion based upon the figures of that careful work. Yet
Jordan has the sublime impertinence in 1908 to sneer at this unbiased, careful survey
of 1872-1874, by saying ‘‘the 150 feet is a guess, and that only.’’ (Page 80, note.)
I used these figures of 1890 in detail for Tolstoi because I do not give the detailed
analysis or figures of 1872-1874 (only the summary) in my 1890 report of its sea margin
and square feet, viz, ‘‘3,000 feet of sea margin, making ground for 225,000 breeding
seals and their young,’’ not deeming it necessary to produce so many detailed figures
when my charts for both seasons were in full evidence in the published work of 1890.
I never made the blunder of attempting to count all the bulls, all the cows, or all
the pups on any rookery in 1872-1874. The utter stupidity of such a step never
entered my head. It never did in 1890, even when the ragged remnant of the great
life of 1872 was before me. It has only remained for Jordan and his job lot of assis-
tants to race up and down these desolated breeding areas, in their idle attempts to
do so, and the record of the self-contradiction of their own work bristles with the folly
of it on a score of pages in his report.
1 Not printed.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 75
Here is what I published in 1872-1874 relative to the seal unit of space, and it is
clear enough to men who have reasoned to the line with me on the ground itself; to
men like Capt. Maynard, United States Navy, 1874, and William Kapus, general man-
ager of the lessees in 1872-73, and all of their official associates who were with them
at that time:
‘Rookery space occupied by single seals —When the adult males and females, 15 or
20 of the latter to every one of the former, have arrived upon the rookery, I think
a oMid dre
& S2 FZ
=Neqgene
=
Bingtiaw Boy
ToLsTO1L .vOOKERY
Saint Baus Iceland
Swcveyod Taly 1.3 G HWE
wd AE Gotlagher Agents Flo Cam Erap Teat Commacee
Aauns: ok tha Katou wa Vocation & he breedwyg, seals.
Baiveey “A aN Rew ws acted
Foose of Si e, _ Mere are HO baths Soo cows
bo, “ee ¥EAA, ewe J b&, wo oe.
“Bua C , ewe bo de, 3500 &.
de (Ca aw D, thax wae 50 ds 3,ba0 de
2 patel eee"
Totstor
aioe nan
D ont aT ee
mae Ei vo NN Ve *
DURES
an area a little less than 2 feet square for each female may be considered as the super-
ficial space required by each animal with regard to its size and in obedience to its
habits; and this limit may safely be said to be over the mark. Now, every female
or cow on this 2 feet square of space doubles herself by bringing forth her young,
and in a few days or a week, perhaps, after its birth the cow takes to the water to
76 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
wash and feed and is not back on this allotted space one-half of the time again during
the season. In this way is it not clear that the females almost double their number
on the rookery grounds without causing the expansion of the same beyond the limits
that would be actually required did they not bear any young at all? For every
100,000 breeding seals there will be found more than 85,000 females and less than
15,000 males; and in a few weeks after the landing of these females they will show
for themselves—that is, for this 100,000—fully 180,000 males, females, and young,
instead, on the same area of ground occupied previously to the birth of the pups.
“Ft must be borne in mind that perhaps 10 or 12 per cent of the entire number of
females were yearlings last season and come up onto these breeding grounds as nubiles
for the first time during the season—as 2-year-old cows. They, of course, bear no
young. The males, being treble and quadruple the physical bulk of the females,
require about 4 feet square for their use of this same rookery ground, but as they are
less than one-fifteenth the number of the females—much less, in fact—they there-
fore occupy only one-eighth of the space over the breeding ground, where we have
located the supposed 100,000. This surplus area of the males is also more than bal-
anced and equalized by the 15,000 or 20,000 2-year-old females which come onto this
ground for the first time to meet the males. They come, rest a few days or a week,
and retire, leaving no young to show their presence on the ground.
“The breeding bulls average 10 feet apart by 7 feet on the rookery ground; have
each a space, therefore, of about 70 square feet for an average family of 15 cows, 15
ups, and 5 virgin females, or 35 animals for the 70 feet—2 square feet for each seal,
fie or little. The virgin females do not lay out long, and the cows come and go at
intervals, never all being on this ground at one time; so the bull has plenty of room
in his space of 70 square feet for himself and harem. ne
“Taking all these points into consideration, and they are features of fact, I quite
safely calculate upon an average of 2 square feet to every animal, big or little, on the
breeding grounds at the initial point upon which to base an intelligent computation
of the entire number of seals before us. Without following this system of enumeration
a person may look over these swarming myriads between Southwest Point and Novas-
toshnah, guessing vaguely and wildly at any figure from 1,000,000 up to 10,000,000
or 12,000,000, as has been done repeatedly. How few people know what a million
really is! It is very easy to talk of a million, but it is a tedious task to count it off,
and makes one’s statements as to ‘millions’ decidedly more conservative after the labor
has been accomplished.’’ (Transcript from the author’s field notes of 1874. Nah
Speelkie, St. Paul Island, July 12.) ’
IT am satisfied to-day that the pups are the sure guide to the whole number of seals
on the rookeries. The mother seals are constantly coming and going, while the pups
never leave the spot upon which they are dropped more than a few feet in any direc-
tion until the rutting season ends; then they are allowed, with their mothers, by the
old bulls to scatter over all the ground they want to. At this date the compact system
of organization and massing on the breeding grounds is solidly maintained by the
bulls; it is not relaxed in the least until on and after July 20.
CENSUS OF POLAVINA ROOKERY.
{Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of Polavina (proper) rookery, St. Paul Island,
Pribilof Group, July 15, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents, House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pub-
lished as House Document 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, First Session,
pages 31, 32, 33.
Before we reach station F, of the 1890 survey, we find two harems
located under the bluffs of the hauling grounds of 1890, on the grand
parade. There are 14 cows and 2 bulls in these harems, being all
the life there.
We proceed along from that station, toward jag 4, at the base of
which we find one full harem—a bull with about 80 cows; 1 bull
with 7 cows, and 1 bull with 1 cow, with no ‘‘polsecatchie,” and no
idle bulls in sight.
Pave,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 77
Next, we come to jag 3, of the 1890 survey. We find within its
borders 7 bulls with about 600 cows—not a young bull in sight and
no polsecatchie. We also find 1 bull with 1 cow under jag 2.
Under jag 1 we find 5 bulls and about 175 cows.
Coming now to the ‘‘grotto,”’ we find 1 bull and about 30 cows,
there being 22 pups here.
At Polovina Point, and right on the summit of the point, we find
8 bulls and about 200 cows, with 3 young 6-year-old bulls in the water
below and a small band of holluschickie, the number of which it is
hard to estimate, as they play in the surf and over the rocks awash.
From Polovina Point we proceed westward and around to the
finish of this rookery’s sea margin at the intersection of the sand.
Here we observe the greatest massing on this rookery, the number
of which we estimate at about 50 bulls and about 7,000 cows. A
mere handful of helluschickie are seen here, no young bulls, no polse-
catchie, and only two or three 6-year old bulls in the water. These
bulls are massed within an area of 500 feet from the point and lay
up in the old half-moon form on the original rookery, where 240,000
cows and pups laid 40 years ago. From this small nucleus of 1913
it is very likely that the withered Polovina oak of 1874 will again
TOW." |
at is also interesting, as we close this survey of the St. Paul rook-
eries with this one of Pelovina, to note the fact that as the rookery
lay in 1874 as a half-moon on the side of a gently sloping hill up
from the sea, so now it seems to start anew after one year’s rest.
The same order of growth seems instinctively to show itself here by
the massing of these harems as described above.
It can not be overlooked as we write these notes, closing this
hand-to-hand examination of every foot of these Pribilof rookery
margins, that the young male life which was scught to be reestab-
lished by the Hitchcock rules in 1904 is wholly missing. Only here
and there and at rare intervals do we see a young 5 or 6 year old
bull. Had those rules and regulations of 1904 been faithfully ob-
served, there would have been thousands of them at the rookery
margins at this hour and in their rear.
We also have to say, in connection with the work done this morn-
ing at Northeast Point, that that total absence of fighting bulls and
tearing of cows to pieces and trampling of pups has been universal
throughout the entire survey of ali these Pribilof breeding seals from
start to finish.
——
1 With regard to the form of this seal life on Polovina in 1872-1874, as contrasted with the condition it
isnow in, the following official record is made of it (p. 42, H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.). to wit:
“The ringing, iron-like basaltic foundations of the island are here (Polovina) setting up boldly from the
sea to a height of 40 or 50 feet, black and purplish-red, polished like ebony by the friction of the surf, and
worn by its agency into grotesque arches, tiny caverns, and deep fissures. Surmounting this lava bed is
@ cap oi ferruginous cement and tufa from 3 to 10 feet thick, making a reddish floor, upon which the seals
patter in their restless, never-ceasing evolutions, sleeping and waking, on the island. It is as great a
single parade plateau of polished cement as is that of the reef.
“The rookery itself * * * is placed at the southern termination and gentle sloping of the long
reach of Polovina’s bluff wall, which is the only cliff between Lukannon and Novestoshnah * * *.
“Tt presents itself to the eye with great scenic effect, * * * covered with an infinite detail of massed
seals in reproduction * * *,”
pen again, in July, 1890, the following contrast is drawn, looking back to 1872-1874, p. 44, following the
above: .
“So when I regard this ground to-day, after an interval of 16 years since my last survey, I find a square
declaration from the ground itself of loss to this rookery of one-half of its female life, while its breeding bulls
are not equal to one-fifteenth of their number here in 1872. Then, too, the utter absence of a young bull
on the vacant spaces in the rookery or in the water at its sea margin; and, still more remarkable in con-
trast, that pronounced utter absence of the holluschickie from their grand parade ground here—that silent,
empty space before me on which at this time in 1872 anywhere from 75,000 to 100,000 holluschickie were
i aed an and out of the water frolicking in tireless antics one with another or wrapped in profound
sleep ;
78 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
CENSUS OF LITTLE POLOVINA ROOKERY.
{Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of Little Polovina rookery, St. Pauls Island,
Pribilof group, July 15, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents ‘House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published official survey made by Henry
W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly published as
House ae 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, pages
BP 32, 33. 7
We begin our survey at station C, and up to station B every vestige
of seal life has disappeared, as compared with the survey of 1890.
From the latter station we find 21 bulls and about 800 to 1,000
cows; ‘‘no polsecatchie in the rear,” and, in fact, no young bulls any-
where in sight. The life then abruptly ceases and from this station
to station D not a vestige remains. There are no holluschickie in
or around this rookery or in sight.!
To recapitulate-—For Little Polovina, July 15, 1913, we find 21
bulls, 1,000 cows, 900 pups; for Polovina rookery, July 15, 1913, we
find 72 bulls, 8,005 cows, 7,200 pups. On both Polovinas, season
of 1890, there were 1,850 bulls, 71,000 cows, 70,250 pups; season of
1874, there were 8,600 bulls, 150,000 cows, 148,500 pups.
CENSUS OF NOVASTOSHNAH ROOKERY.
{Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of Novastoshnah rookery, St. Pauls Island,
Pribilof Group, Tuesday, July 15, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents House
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published and official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pub-
lished as House Document 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session,
pages 31, 32, 33.)
As we open and begin our review of this rookery of Novastoshnah
to day, we start in at Websters Point and traverse the abandoned
hauling grounds of 1874 to Pulpit Point. At station A is where the
breeding grounds of 1874 ended on this side of Novastoshnah. From
Pulpit Point to the sand beach, between station B and station A of
the 1890 survey, not a single seal is in sight to-day. Crossing over
that sand beach to station A, we find the small hauling grounds of
1890 entirely abandoned, no sign of any holluschickie on them, not
a single polsecatchie; a small pod of holluschickie is hauled out on
rocks awash under A, which are the last remnant of thousands once
1 In 1872-1874 there were two great hauling grounds which were never visited at any time by the natives
who were getting seals for the lessees; they were never even looked at or thought of by anybody when
Elliott was surveying the herd then—the Southwest Point hauling grounds, where at least 60,600 to 80,000
large 3 and 4 year old seals gathered fairly alone by themselves, and the Dalnoi hauling grounds, just mid -
way between Little Polovina and Novostoshnah.
The natives told us that they had first ‘‘driven” the “big seals” at Southwest Point in 1886; they had by
1889 completely finished the life there, and to-day, July 24, 1913, they told us that not a seal has ever hauled
out there since.
They made their last drive from Dalnoi in 1896; not a seal has hauled there since; in 1890 they drove less
than 100 from it. This shrinking to disappearance of the surplus male life long, long before any great loss
of the female life has never aroused that interest which it deserved by the casual observers who have been
on these islands at intervals since 1890 to date. The natives, however, in 1890 were much concerned about
it, and declared that the work of the pelagic sealer was then not near as deadly for the seal herd’s existence,
nor was the killing on land as it had been conducted ever since 1883.
In 1872-1874 they declared that under the Russian régime, 1800-1834, the continued annual killing of the
young male seals (just as the lessees have been killing them since 1871-1909) had so reduced the herd that
they were compelled to give ita 10 years’ rest; they said that in 1834 there were “only about 500 cows alive
on Polovina,”’ ete. (See Elliott’s Mono. Seal Islands, 1882, 10th Census, p. 49.)
("gL ased sovyoy) F1—06FEE
oo es
°F VO
coed Se e 8 ory)
og : : "Eee. rv
f ie L Stee eRe. ¥ ny
a ee ee:
ihe es npn VANE ae, ee os oa
Fooyoons eurmeyny
isqea(y Soerpeng ™m 8 oe ee wat fs ry
a
NE
PAN a¢
“Terrst Penavina ys se x
Tuthy 5.043. i
Savveged ty TFET. Belliots od ABO wrdhur
Aggata Wa. Com, Erne. Pog) Commerce. © SAX
Arasiyis seo hes pA Luoedlon of Yoo Grocdiznd, Seals
ite Polavine Reokory:
we a ey da ct eind
eae Be Se Lee wady $000 co-*-
( “mg ) SK }
Poravina Rookery NY Hg)
Surt Bat Totand: Verly 15:9q09.
Swevegsd ba Hovey NBs why one tae. : es v 4.
a Pept. Covacrerce,
+B “Gens,
a ——— —— S ~
eo y Sa snes Pouravina Pomr
— <a
Se aa pana?
Arvstusis xe Kuamboes ee cert of the Prerding, QGeatsr
ou Blew a Svodkor4
“he. © bulls wed tet Coes
Nowe MieB. Aaa ow re
five Ts 8 is pie ;
we f | Jag - Se 1 A
Row a “Tat Oe ‘ Ss ae
ee ‘ F 4 do 300 -
ooo
ee Evan “g _ §0 ds. 7
53490—14 (To face page 78.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 1719
existing and swarming on that immense sweep from Websters Point.
To the crest of Hutchinsons Hill from here it is overgrown with grass,
and it was totally abandoned by the seals evidently many years ago.
On reaching station A we find the first seals surviving from the
survey of 1890. We find here the best depth of a single gathering of
the herd that we have seen outside of the massing under Garbotch;
it is at least five harems deep. We find from 750 to 800 cows and
from 38 to 40 bulls. On the water’s edge we find four or five 6-year
old bulls. re
This feature of normal massing of harems at this point is imme-
diately lost as we proceed toward Sea Lion Neck, or station B, and
on reaching that foot of it we find a second semimassing, three harems
deep, of about 120 cows. On the rocks of this station is the first
noteworthy squad of holluschickie that we have encountered, per-
haps 200 or 300 of them. We find here about 35 bulls and about
800 cows. We find here the first big sea lion seen thus far in our
survey.
ern station B to the neck it is all abandoned, even every sea lion
has gone, with the exception of about 100 holluschickie and two
ragged harems about midway between the neck and this station.
From the neck we go to Northeast Point and find nothing,’ thus
closing the entire aggregate of breeding seals on the east margin as
compared with the survey of 1890.
On our arrival at the point we find a rookery of sea lions which
closely resembles the aggregate of 1890; in other words, there may
be 1,500 of them. There is certainly a fine aggregate and no danger
of extermination to this life on the island.
From the Point we proceed west to the Asses Ears. Under the
immediate flank of them and the sea-lion rookery, we encounter a
ragged seal-harem, together with one idle bull in the rear.
Starting at the foot of station L, we meet the first band of breeding
seals where none hauled in 1890, existing on grounds not occupied in
1890 and as we proceed west, we find 7 bulls and about 250 cows,
with one idle bull on this ground abandoned in 1890, and now reoccu-
pied in 1913, which is the first example of this kind found thus far on
the rookeries. There are no polsecatchie, no 6-year-old bulls; no
fighting, and no evidence of dead, or sick, or trampled pups. All
look healthy and well.
Immediately above us, as we go west, is the first noteworthy pod of
holluschickie hauled out, consisting chiefly of yearlings; we should
1 In view of that complete elimination, the following is recorded of it in 1872:
“There is no impression on my mind really more vivid than is the one which was planted there during
the afternoon of that July day (1872) when I first made my survey of this ground. Indeed, whenever I
pee to think of the subject this great rookery of Novestoshnah rises promptly to my view, and I am
airly rendered voiceless when I try to speak in definition of the spectacle. In the first place this slope
from Sea Lion Neck to the summit of Hutchinsons Hill is a long mile, smooth and gradual from the sea
to the hill top. The parade ground lying between is also nearly three-quarters of a mile in width, sheer
and unbroken. Now, upon that area before my eyes, this day and date of which I have spoken, were the
forms of not less than three-fourths of a million of seals. Pause a moment; think of that number; three-
fourths of a million seals moving in one solid mass from sleep to frolicsome gambols, backward, forward,
over, around, charging and intercharging their heavy squadrons until the whole mind is so confused and
charmed by the vastness of mighty hosts that it refuses to analyze any further. Then, too, I remember
that the day was one of exceeding beauty for thatregion. It was aswift alternation overhead of those char-
acteristic rain fogs, between the succession of which the sun breaks out with transcendent brilliancy
through the misty halos about it. This parade field reflected the light like a mirror, and the seals when
they broke apart here and there for a moment, just enough to show its surface, seemed as though they
walked upon the water. What a scene to put upon canvas, that amphibian host involved in those alter-
a tt) ow lights and blue-gray shadows of the fog.” (Monograph Seals Islands of Alaska, 1872-1874;
iott.
Every foot of that ground thus described above is covered with grass to-day, and not a single hauling
squad of bachelor seals seen upon it, but one small bunch of less than 4,500. (H. W. E., July 15, 1913.)
80 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
judge there are about 1,000 or 1,200 of them in this batch. Just be-
fore reaching these holluschickie, we find the first dead pup that we
have seen thus far, although, naturally, there must be many more.
As we proceed to station M, passing these holluschickie, we find 24
bulls and about 700 cows. The holluschickie which all ran down to
the sea and swam off as we passed by, are now rounding the point in
front of us, a few haulmg up again on the rocks immediately under
station M. We find among them 7 or 8 young idle bulls and these
are the first ones we have found thus far on this rookery. By,
At station M we find another semimassing of harems, which we
count, and estimate as containing 23 bulls and from 2,300 to 2,500
cows. Back of this massing are two pods of holluschickie, which we
estimate to consist of about 100 in one pod, and the other of about
2,500 or 3,000—all going to the water—nearly all yearlings, very few
6-year-old’s, very few polsecatchie, as they show themselves to us
as they are now going into the water by us. To these figures we add
about 430 cows at the base of this station, and 10 bulls. In between
we find a couple of ragged harems, 2 bulls and 14 cows.
Between stations M and N the holluschickie which are running out
now from the pods which we have just stirred up, make an exhibition
of at least 4,000 young animals since they started; chiefly yearlings.
(More than 200,000 of them were on this particular area under Hutch-
inson Hill, in July, 1874.)
From station N we now proceed to jag 1, of the 1890 survey under
the foot of Hutchinson Hill, and at the base of which lies a mass of
breeding seals, of about 12 harems deep. This is the deepest and the
largest aggregation of that normal massing of breeding seals which
existed here in 1874, that we have seen thus far, and which now is
only faintly shadowed out by it. From this outside point of enumer-
ation, since it is impossible to properly get in among and count those
bulls as they lie to-day, nor 1s it sensible or advisable to do so, it
would appear that there are from 65 to 75 bulls, but it is impossible
to state the exact number, we will therefore define the boundary as
being substantially the base of jag A in the 1890 survey, and cut
down to slightly within the limits of the 1874 survey.
From here we will pass to the summit of jag 1, of the 1890 survey,
and look down upon this mass of breeding seals at the foot of Hutch-
insons Hill, in order that we may make a sensible approximation of
the numbers massed therein. We observe along here two more dead
pups. Reaching this summit (jag 1) we look down and find that
the massing follows the lines of 1890, reaching from the point of
jag 2 over to the limits of jag 1, but within the Imes of the survey of
1874. -It again falls away into a series of ragged harems, and dies
out before we reach station N. It is massed approximately as the
normal massing of 1874, as far as it goes, covering at least 520 feet
of the sea margin, running back of jag 1 of 1890 at least 200 feet,
with 10 or 12 harems deep, fading away toward jag 2, and jag 3
being entirely eliminated and lost in this survey.’ We find in this
1 Touching this complete elimination of seal life as noted here in 1913, it is interesting to contrast the
description of it as it appeared on this spot in 1890, or 23 years ago.
“As this great rookery was the object of my chief admiration in 1872, now it, in 1890, again becomes the
object of my chief concern—net admiration to-day, but of my chief pity for this breeding ground has suffered
a startling loss of life durimg the last 18 years. It oresents the deepest shadow now to that sunsuine inwhich
I saw it 18 years ago, as I then walked around and over if. Isurveyed the ground last summer (July, 1890)
as one would locate a graveyard; not more than a suggestion of the massed life of 1372 have [ been able to
see within its desolate area That ground which I have described in 1872-1874 as covered wiih hosts of
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 81
massing of breeding seals approximately 6,500 cows and about 125
bulls, with 10 ‘‘idle” bulls in the rear, but no “‘polsecatchie” about.
The survey of jag 3 of 1890—that is, the life line of the survey
of jag 3 of 1890 to-day—is now represented by a fringe of harems at
the surf margin, consisting of 24 or 25 harems and about 400 cows;
no idle bulls.
We find also a large gathering of sea lions, bulls, and cows just
below the breeding seals at the surf margin on the rocks, there being
not less than 300 or 400 of them.
Proceeding to station O, we find about 32 bulls and 600 cows.
From O to P we find about 32 bulls and about 600 cows. At the
foot of station P there are about 14 bulls and about 250 cows, with
two idle 6-year-old bulls in the rear, but no polsecatchie.
As we proceed from P to Q, we find 15 bulls and about 400 cows.
That closes the life, which abruptly ends at station Q.
Beyond, as we progress to station R, we find 10 bulls (6 of which
are idle), and four harems at the northwest shoulder of station R,
containing about 50 cows; the entire life of 1890 being reduced to
that! On the reef at the foot of this northwest shoulder are three or
four hundred holluschickie playing on the rocks, with a few sea lions.
It may be said here, in review, that the sea hons that we have
seen at the foot of the station that we have just left undoubtedly
belong to the rookery at Northeast Point, and the aggregate num-
ber of them that we have had in view clearly proves that the sea-
lion life of to-day is quite up to the record of 1890.
We now proceed from station R to station S on the northwest
shoulder, and we find a series of pocket harems at the surf wash,
consisting of two bulls, with about 140 cows, and 6 bulls with about
250 cows, plus one bull with three cows, in the pocket right at the
extreme point of the northwest shoulder, together with one injured
or crippled bull.
From station S we proceed to station T, where we find 5 bulls and
about 60 cows under the last-named station.
We now sweep around to stations U and V, and enumerate as
follows: Seven bulls plus 2 bulls and about 300 cows, plus 10 bulls
and 350 cows, with 2 polsecatchie swimming at the water’s edge
(the first we have seen this morning), plus about 25 bulls and over
1,500 cows, with one 6-year-old bull in the rear, plus 4 bulls and 65
cows, plus 3 bulls and about 50 cows, and plus 5 bulls and about
250 cows.
Between station V and station W nothing appears in sight. At
stations U, V, W, and X there is a complete abandonment of all
that ground by the seal life; not a single seal on the rocks or on the
hauling grounds or in sight! From station X to the middle shoulder
amphibians, is again before me to-day, with not a single herd of seals upon it—actually green with upspring-
ing grass and colored and flecked with varied flowers.” (P.47, H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.)
“The sound which arose in 1372 from these great breeding herds of the fur seal when thousands upon
teas of thousands of active, angry, and vigilant bulls were roaring, chuckling, piping, and multitudes of
seal mothers were calling in hollow bleating tones to their young, that in turn responded incessantly, is
simple defiance to verbal description. It was at a slight distance softened into a deep booming as of a
cataract. * * * Night and day throughout the season of 1872 this din upon the rookeries was steady
and constant.” (Pp. 41-42.
“Thave heard it with a light, fair wind as far as 6 miles out from land in thesea. And even in the thunder
of the surf and roar of heavy gales it weuld rise up and over all to your ear quite a considerable distance
away. it was the monitor for which the sea captains anxiously strained their ears when they had run
their ‘dead reckoning’ up and were ‘laying to’ in the fog, waiting for it to rise so they could get their bear-
ings on the Jand.” (Elliott, Mono. Seal Islands, 1872-1874.)
53490—14—_6
82 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
we now proceed, and right under the foot of the middle shoulder
since we left station W the first seal life reappears, and we find here
3 bulls with about 50 cows.
From the middle shoulder, where we have just enumerated this
appearance of the seal life since we left station W, we now traverse
tiie finish of this coast line of Novastoshnah, to the south sh~walder,
and as we go we observe not even a shadow of this life—there is
not a single seal from our starting point to the finish at station B;
not a sign of seal life.
As we look back, over and along the whole route that we have
traversed this morning, in and out of these pocket harems, and
over the ground covered by the survey of 1890, we are impressed
with the fact that the seal life as we see it now is far short of that
surplus male life which nature intended should surround and serve
as sires for the breeding harems. Throughout this entire circuit
we have been impressed with the fact that the number of cows
in harems are abnormally large. They are nearly three times greater
than the proportion which is naturally found in their normal con-
dition. The bulls evidently have had no real fightg to main-
tain and secure their positions, since very few of them have any
combat marks. The result is that we find an aggregate of very
large harems, spreading out into scattered or ragged harems on
either side, in which the service is often devolved upon the single
bull, unless assisted, far beyond his power, smce many of these
larger harems, numbering not less than 120 to 130 cows, were observed.
In a very large majority of the pocket harems the families exceeded
60 to 75 cows; the ragged harems of 5 to 10 cows, surrounding
them, make up the total of active bulls as against the total of breed-
ing cows, a misleading summing up; because, really, the bulls which
are in active service within the lines of the large harems are doing
three and four times the work they should do, while the others are
practically idle. Then, also, we observe, as we complete the cir-
cuit, that same crowding unnaturally, by the breeding seals, to
the surf line, instead of lymg up in a normal manner, 10 or 12 feet
back from the surf wash at high tide. That is due undoubtedly
to the incessant hunting and chasing of these holluschickie by the
natives and pup counting along the lines of these harems and the
sea margin, as the lessees urged the native drivers to get them or
the agents directed the ‘‘live-pup counts’’—all wrong.
From here on the north, middle, and south shoulders the small
hauling of holluschickie reported in 1890 has entirely disappeared,
and it seems to now be entirely confined to that single exhibition,
as above cited, at stations M and N.
We might add that this morning we have seen the first badly
injured bull thus far seen on our survey, and that we have not seen
a single exhibition of “bulls fighting for possession of the females”’
or of ‘“‘cows being torn to pieces’”’ by the bulls, or of “pups tram-
pled to death” on the rookery.
We have carefully looked into nearly every one of the harems,
and we have not seen more than one dead pup. We have not seen
the slightest evidence of any sickness or distemper among these
seals, old or young.
Mor vst Rast Baorr
NoRTMWEST SHEVEDER,
Son laon Neck
\N
: \
Baten HoOKERY.
ee Suvcvejed Judy 1G, Ay WWE Eavott
NIDDLE SHounpER rs
(/ wed ALY Gsiadher . Agents Ho. Gm. Beep Plopt Comme.
Sy z
4 i ome
Gs wy Ror
\
>
A
GRO Den eS Pun
oe pS PIT POMT
W5svER'S Fonsy
Soarhysis ob he Nawhers wd Srcestion of via Bosodiond, Tosle
wv Sovrstoshnrly rockers,
Bear Sig0 ¥ % “A. = AES Ang,
vo Ft Ste. A Brow we BR bla wt Goo ema.
Aves So. B,— nh cede qo &.
Aco! he ° 4s potas.
Ahrens © %O%L ae
foun A ioeear ae Sante £2es =U
fe $row OYE" BE Bed Wit is acting.
AGES vo Sto: Fy, — Mae 1 Aad oy
Fokieow Ste. Uma V- Fiow oe yt bUern5 2.260 ens nee Sele ma Ni 1 * wee a3
Aa V ved K. ahave is wattcg 5 245 Of SG. MK. a F :
Delage es ake wo § bMe et So do ae Ste Wed, pee: oe oe aco ira
: Aivse ee Aes se do, i ie do,
Gee I: - - 5 4 do, S20 do
Grd Foto of yu buble, oy 358 ove, Bow Tin eae Se eats en De
’ Row of 002 od
sy 19; 4G43 J eM ee eee an =
' 7 Yor as cialis: ° h a }
basal ae ; eee wt dow iw Go do.
ew 15) do. upo do.
Bose & Ke cai do, wo do,
Beka KEK 10d 8, a u do = 8G OD ds,
Blolicow Ste S vad) TE cis do, bo do,.
53490—14. (To face page 83.)
Vea
wave
;
NR ert
v GAT A rey
bali
e, dl i ; " i ir
‘ UTC as
i mi PANE fa
i he 4
( AY
(‘gg eBed eoByOy) “pI—06PES
f “ Lt Sag roe
op 99 % Es
‘cp obp - Ses ey
‘op op op nape: ie eae a aes
‘op «=: Gan 4 fas 7) ke . B.
Ae = sl Seen ogy ar : = Lae te |
AeATINGHS LSM RISO
DLNQE Lowy JoLOy
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 83
To recapitulate— For Novashstoshnah rookery: July 5, 1913, we
find 454 bulls, 17,358 cows, 15,622 pups. Season of 1890 there
were 2,600 bulls, 103,937 cows, 95,000 pups; season of 1874 there
were 34,000 bulls, 600,000 cows, 540,000 pups.
CENSUS OF REEF AND GARBOTCH ROOKERIES, WITH SEHEVITCHIE
KAMMEN-
[Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition o { Reef and Garbotch rookeries, St. Paul
Island, Pribilof Group, Thursday, July 10,1913, by Henry W. Eiliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents
of House Committee on Expenditures in the Department cf Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery when comparison is made with that
of 1890 is founded upon the published official survey made by Henry
W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pubtishea as
House Document No. 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, pages 31,
32, 33.)
Beginning with our survey this morning, we find that the thin
fringe of breeding seals which laid under the cap at Garbotch in1890
has practically disappeared, with the exception of four or five small
harems, until we reach the line under the Black Bend. The entire
disappearance of that breeding life which was enumerated in 1890
as jags R, Q, and P has taken place. No massing or suggestion of
massing of a single harem occurs until we reach jag Q of the 1890
survey. The Zoltoi bluffs to our back, on which a ae hundred hollu-
schicke hauled out during the summer of 1890, has been entirely
abandoned by those animals, and the natives say that no drive has
been made from there since 1896.
As in 1890 not a single killable seal or holluschack has hauled on
Zoltoi sands up to this date. That famous and beautiful gathering
place of the bachelors has been completely abandoned by them since
1890.
Upon the surf margin of Black Bend we find to-day a single fringe
or line of six widely separated small harems—one being a full harem,
one a ragged harem, and the others controlled each by a single bull
with four to five cows. There are no young male bulis in sight.
There are no polsecatchie at the water’s edge or in the rear. The
entire breeding ground area is abandoned as marked on the 1890
survey save these noted exceptions.
Proceeding on our way, we find from the Black Bend that the
breeding seals on jags P and Q, of 1890, have entirely disappeared,
and the sole survivors are now exhibited by that thin fringe of harems
which we have just mentioned. From the summit of the Old John
Rock, as we proceed, we find that the first massing which in the
slightest degree resembles the normal condition of these rookeries is
found at the foot of Old John Kock and to the southward to Gerbotch
Bight, a distance of some 600 feet; here the harems are banked three
and four bulls deep from the water’s edge. The bulls are scattered at
intervals of 20 to 30 feet apart (the normal distance being from 7 to 10
1 The “‘podding” of the pups at Novashstoshnah September, 1872: ‘Although the appearance of the
holluschickie at English Bay fairly overwhelms the observer with an impression of its countless multi-
tudes, yet I am free to declare that at no one point in this evoluticn during the reproductive season have
I been so deeply stricken with the sense of overwhelming enumeration as I have been when standing on
the summnit of Cross Hill I looked down to the southward and westward over a reach of 6 miles of alternate
grass and sand dune stretches, mirrored upon which were hundreds of thousands of these little black pups
spread in sleep and sport within this restricted field of vision. They appeared as countless as the grains
of sand upon which they rested.” (Elliott, p. 46, H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.)
84 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
feet, when the herd is in fine form and condition). The cows in the
harems present a uniformly rusty tone, which shows that the pups
are all born for the season, practically. In the whole field of view
under our eyes the proportion of new arrivals among the cows, as is
shown by their silvery coats (gray backs and white bellies), is not
one in fifty. The bulls appear in good form, not somnolent; and the
proportion of young 6 to 8 year old bulls is quite large, though the
number, all told,is far below the normal ratio; the cows are exceeding
the males far, far beyond the limits of 1872 and 1874. There is no
fighting under our eyes; no bull bears a mark upon his back, sides, or
flippers, which is the evidence of fighting, if there be such, or has been
such this season on this place. Ne dead, sick, or trampled pups here;
no cows ‘‘torn to pieces” by the bulls either; not one.
Looking back and up under the slope of Black Bend to the base of
this point of view from Old John Rock, the cap, we find that the
entire area of 1890 occupied by breeding seals is reduced to nothing,
save those few harems noted thereon by us at the start, on the margin
of the scene, until we reach that first pot of massing which we have
just described. There are no half-bulls in sight at the rear or at the
water’s margin, and only five or six virile bulls in the rear. As we
roceed from Garbotch Bight! onward, jags M, N, and O, of 1890
ee entirely disappeared; nothing remains except six massed harems
at the foot of jag M, and four ragged harems in between, at wide
intervals, at the water’s edge; from the bight we go to the foot of
jags L, K, and J, of 1890, and find there is a complete elimination of
all of that breeding-seal life save six ragged harems between jag M
and the foot of jag L. Upon the ground occupied by the breeding
seals in 1890, of jags K and UL, is to-day a band of holluschickie, which
we find to be composed nine-tenths of yearlings and the balance 2-
year-olds, with the exception of a few 6-year-old and 5-year-old bulls
hauled with them.
As we proceed we find that jags J and K are entirely eliminated,
and in lieu thereof 10 harems are now scattered over the vacant
interval, 3 of those harems being normal and the others ragged. We
see no half-bulls in the rear or on the water’s edge, nor are there any
idle bulls. f
As we proceed to the finish of the Garbotch line we find that jags
I and H of 1890 have completely disappeared, save at the extreme
water’s edge, and down there and between the Java pockets are 8 or
10 massed harems and 7 or 8 ragged or scattered ones, with no eyi-
dence of an idle bull or the appearance of polsecatchie in the water
or at the rear.
This completes our survey to-day of the breeding line of Garbotch.
From there we proceed to Ardiguen, on the Reef Point.
1 This desolated area was not so in 1872-1874, the following attests: ‘‘The adaptation of this ground of
the Reef Rookery to the requirements of the seal is perfect. It so lies that it falls gently from its high
Zoltoi Bay margin over Garbotch Bight on the west to the seaon the east; and upon its broad expanse
not a solitary puddle of mud spotting is to be seen, though everything is reeking with moisture and the
for even dissolves into rain as we view the scene. Every trace of vegetation upon this parade has been
obliterated; a few tufts of grass, capping the summits of those rocky hillocks indicated on the eastern and
middle slope, are the only signs of botanical life that the seals have suffered to remain.”’
A small rock (see Vichie Kammen) five or six hundred feet away and out to sea is also covered with
the black and yellow forms of fur seals and sea lions. It is environed by shoal reefs, rough and kelp-
grown, which navigators prudentiy avoid.
‘This rookery of the reef proper has 4,916 feet of sea margin, with an average depth of 150 feet, making
ground for 301,000 breeding seals and their young. Garlotch Rookery has 3,606 feet of sea margin, with
an average depth of 100 feet, making ground for 183,000 breeding seals and young. an aggregate for this
great Reef Rookery of 484,000 breeding seais and young. Heavy as this enumeration is, yet this aggre-
gate only makes the Reef Rookery third in importance compared with the others which we are yet to
describe.’”” (Monograph Seal Islands of Alaska: Elliott: 1874, p. 51.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 85
To-day Ardiguen, or jag G of the 1890 survey, has been reduced to
a fringe of 12 or 13 scattered harems, all resting right at the water’s
edge. All massing here, or rookery appearance of 1890, has disap-
eared.
; We now proceed to the Reef Pomt, where we find that jags F and
E have receded to the water’s margin, showing a fringe of 25 or 30
harems, 6 or 7 of which are abnormally large, 1 having at least 200
cows, another 60, and 2 or 3 of them with 30 or 40. We see here
the first half-bull observed to-day and which bull fled from the rear
and took to the water. We also see another half-bull in the water
and one 6-year-old idle bull, the first idle 6-year old seen. There is no
evidence of fighting and no evidence of trampled pups or cows being
torn to pieces seen on the survey thus far.
As we proceed we find that jag D and jag C of 1890 are reduced to
six massed harems at the water’s edge, the bunching at the foot of
jag D representing, collectively, about 500 cows, consisting of five or
six harems Bancied another representing three or four massed
harems, another representing three or four, another representing two,
and another representing six or seven, the whole aggregate not ex-
ceeding 1,000 cows and 25 or 30 bulls. We also observed here two
polsecatchie or 5-year-old bulls lying in the rear, but no others in
sight, either at the rear or at the water’s edge. ‘There are only four
or five idle bulls lying in the rear. The whole area covered by breed-
ing seals on these jags of 1890 is abandoned and reduced to this
number and appearance to-day.
We now proceed to the consideration of Jags B and A, as we shall
view them from the Reef Pinnacle, from which point they were best
seen in 1890.
From the Reef Pinnacle we now find that they have been com-
letely eliminated, and in lieu thereof there are seven scattered
Pe along the water’s edge with Poranps 12 or 15 bulls. Around
the pool is clustered a herd of holluschickie, with the usual proportion
of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 year old male seals, this being the only band of
holluschickie viewed since we left Garbotch, and the number may
possibly be as high as 1,200 or 1,300, but these are all the nonbreedin
seals that are im evidence to-day on the Reef Point and Garbote
hauling grounds.
From the foot of jag A to the second point of 1890, we will now
proceed but as we do, we stop at the summit of the Grand Parade
innacle, over which the eye can sweep upon the famous hauling
ounds of 1874, where, from the foot of Fox Hill over to Garbotch
ight down to the Reef Point, and from shore to shore, the entire
area was bare of every vestige of vegetation on the earth and lichens
upon the rocks; and, upon which at any time during this period in
1874, not less than a hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand
holluschickie were hauled out, moving hither and thither in ceaseless
marching and countermarching, or else spread in fitful sleep and
uneasy awakening, so characteristic of this animal when on land.!
1 With regard to this condition of complete elimination of seal life to-day, as contrasted with its appear-
ance on these grounds in 1874, the following description of it is made in Elliott’s Monograph Seal Islands,
under date of July 22, 1874, (pp. 50-51):
“These Zoltoi sands are, however, a famous rendezvous for the holluschickie; and from them during the
season the natives make regular drives, having only to step out from their houses in the morning and walk
but a few rods to find their fur-bearing quarry. {
“ Passing over these sands on our way down to the Reef Point, we quickly come to a basaltic ridge or
backbone, over which the sand has been rifted by the winds, and which supports a rank and luxuriant
86 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
To-day, every foot of that ground so ecrapied and swept in 1874,
and the rocks then polished, is now covered by a luxuriant growth of
mosses, giasses, biennial and perennial flowers. Were it not for the
matted fur and hair that is everywhere under foot and through which
this vegetation reaches for growth, the statement made above would
be fairly unbelievable; unbelievable because all of the holluschickie
seen to-day from the beginning to the end of this survey have been
confined to two small pods, one hauled out at Garbotch, not exceeding
400 or 500, and the other below the reef crest and around the pool,
not exceeding 1,500 or 2,000. These are liberal estimates, and this
statement of the utter abandonment of the sealing ground i is a fact
of positive record and indisputable evidence as this writing is made.
To resume this survey of the breeding lines which we closed at
jags A and B of 1890, we find that the surviving seals are now bunched
in 6 or 7 harems at the foot of those jags; one of these harems bemg
bunched or massed with at least 250 to 300 cows, another even larger,
another of 50 or 60 cows, and two o1 three ragged harems, the whcle
gregate being not less than 1 ,000 cows, with this full disproportion
of bulls in evidence. There is only one young 6-year-old bull seen in
the water, and there are no polsecatchie in the rear.
Between the second point and the foot of jag A is a succession of
12 or 15 harems, all of them large, with two exceptions, carrying an
-aggregate of perhaps 450 to 500 cows. There are no young bulls in the
water, or idle bulls in the rear, with two or three exceptions.
From the second point to the first point, with the exception of six
or seven small surf-.wept harems, consisting of an aggregate of per-
haps less than 150 cows, the herd of 1890 has poranlerels disappeared.
From tbe first point, where there are six or seven harems massing
and approximately 250 cows, we pass to the foot of Fox Hill, over
which area the entire herd of 1890 has disappeared from. Under
the foot of Fox Hill are six or seven small harems with perhaps
100 cows; the herd of 1890 has also disappeared completely in that
place; not a seal on the margin nor a suggestion of a half-bull in the
water, or in the rear. Everywhere a thic ek sod and flowers growing
upon the ground covered by breeding seals in 1874, growing rank
and luxuriant, right down to the surf-swept margins of the standard
breeding ground.!
growth of the Elymus and other grasses with oeautiful flowers. A few hundred feet farther along our
course brings us inte full view as we look to une south of one of the most entrancing spectacles which these
seals afford to man. We look down upon and along a grand promenade ground which slopes gently from
the west to the eastward and trends southward away to a parade plateau as smooth as the floor of a ball-
room 2,000 feet in length, 500 to 1,000 feet in width, over which multitudes of holluschickie are filing in
long strings, or deploying in vast plateons, hundreds abreast in an unceasing march and cour.termarch.
Their breath, wi into the cold air from a hundred thousand hot throats hangs like clouds of white
steam in th J ed. it may be said to be a seal fog peculiar to the spot, while the ain, the
roar arising over all defies our tne Tipviosd
“We notice to our right and to our lett the immense solid masses of the breeding seals at Garbotch, and
those stretching and trending around nearly a mile from our feet, far around to the Reef Point below, and
opposite the p yarade ground, with here and there a neutral passage leit open for the holluschickie to go
down to, and come up from the waves.” ¢
1 In 1890,0n July 10, the following official record of the life on Garbotcl! «2a coe Reefs is summed upas
follows on } age 31, House Document No. 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first sc, lua:
“Those curious jags of breeding seals which show so plainly on the Garbotch slope form the most striking
feature of that chanzed order of affairs which declares a reduction of more than one-half of the females and
fully nine-tenths of the males on this rookery.
“Then that splendid parade ground of 1872 is now fairly deserted—grass, moss, lichens, and even flowers
are now taking root everyw here over its polished surface of 1872—and Zoltoi sands- -it has not been visited
by young male seals this year during the sealing s on—none left to come.”
““The whole of this reef neck in 1872 south of C sy Summit and Fox Aiil was entirely bare of grass or
of any vegetation whatever excent lichens on inaccessible rocks to seals, and tufts of grass on the over
hanzing points and cliff edges of the west shore; but on the 9th of last August, as I stood overlooking the
9
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 87
To recapitulate—For the Reef and Garbotch Rookeries, July 10,
1913, we find 393 bulls, 15,000 cows, 13,500 pups.
CENSUS OF SHEVITCHIE KAMMEN.
(Part of reef.)
[Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of Seevitchie Kammen rookery, St. Pauls
island, Pribilov group, Sunday, July 20, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents
House Committee Expenditures Department of Commerce.]}
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pub-
lished as House Document 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session,
pages 31, 32, 33.)
The survey of the Reef rookery includes a rock known as Seevitchie
Kammen, which is 800 or 900 feet off from the reef and to the south-
ward and at sea.
In 1874 it was covered with the black and yellow forms of fur seals
and sea lions, and the sea here usually is curling in shoal breakers or
sputtered with tide rips. It is a small rocky islet, much less than a
uarter of a mile in length; upon it, in 1874, the seals bred. It was
the place where they hauled out first in the season as holluschickie,
and were the earliest arrivals usually of the season, being found there
sometimes as early as the middle of April.
A survey of it to-day shows that the sea lions have totally aban-
doned it and while the seals have taken possession of it as a breeding
ground, upon it we find about 2,800 cows, about 75 bulls, about
2,500 holluschickie, and about a dozen polsecatchie. These breeding
seals, while not massed, have distributed themselves over the rock
proper, often to the highest ground, upon which the sea lions once
laid; the latter have been persistently driven off by the natives since
1890, who came over to drive and kill the holluschickie in turn. The
sea-lion feature of this rock has entirely disappeared; there are none
here. This breeding ground has been firmly established by the seals,
which have sought refuge here from the incessant hustling and driving
to which they have been subjected on the Reef rookery margins by
the natives during the past 15 or 20 years. In the course of time,
when the Reef regains its former shape and numbers, history will
repeat itself, and many of these breeding seals return to their original
habitat; and the sea lions also, if they are not disturbed.
This closes the survey of the Reef and Garbotch rookeries.
To recapitulate—Grand sum total for Reef and Garbotch, 393 bulls,
15,000 cows, 13,500 pups; Seevitchie Kammen, 75 bulls, 2,800 cows,
2,520 pups; total, 468 bulls, 17,800 cows, 16,020 pups. Lagoon, 8
bulls, 250 cows, 230 pups.
whole field from the summit of Fox Hill, the interior of it was fairly green, and only straggling bands ofa
dozen seais here and a hundred there were hauling over it.
“Eighteen years ago these slopes of Garbotch and the Reef Parade were covered with angry. eager, lusty
bulls, two and three weeks before the first one of the cows arrived. They came in by the 5-22 May in such
numbers 2s to fill that space at close intervals of 7 to 10 feet apart solidly from the shore line to the ridge
summit and over even so far that it required the use of a club vigorously, before we could get upon Old
John Rock from the rear; then, too, at that time, they fighting in every direction under our eyes.
“This season I do not observe a bul] here where I saw at least 10 at this time 18 yearsago. Now, nota
fight in progress; there are not bulls enough to quarrel. They are now scattered apart so widely
over this same ground as to be 100 and even 159 feet apart over ground where in 1872 an interval of 10 feet
between them did not exist.”
88 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Lagoon rookery (July 12, 1913).—To this we add the statement that
Lagoon rookery, right across the Village Cove, and between the lagoon
and the sea, has practically disappeared. There were only two harems
full, and three ragged ones, or 8 bulls and 250 cows on its entire extent,
July 12, 1913. No young male seais in sight in the rear or on the
surf margin, and its condition “‘just es 1t was lest year,” according to
the natives.
On Reef and Garbotch rookeries.—Season of 1890 there were 4,500
bulls, 225,000 cows, 203,000 pups; season of 1874 there were 13,000
bulls, 484,000 cows, 435,000 pups.
On Lagoon rookery.—Season of 1890 there were 100 bulls, 4,500
cows, 4,000 pups; season of 1874 there were 580 bulls, 18,000 cows,
16,250 pups.
CENSUS OF LAGOON ROOKERY.
{Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of conditions of Lagoon rookery, St. Paul Island, Pribilov
group, Saturday, July 12, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents, House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce. ]
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published and official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott and Charles J. Goff, July 10, 1890, and duly pub-
lished as House Document 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session.
pages 31, 32, 33.)
We find that the area occupied in 1890 has been diminished to a
fringe of seven harems just above the surf wash with 8 bulls and
about 250 cows. There are no polsecatchie in the rear, or visible in
the sea, and no idle bulls as we start in, not one in sight to the finish
of our survey. :
This enumeration of 8 bulls to 250 cows is very misleading as to
the actual service rendered, and indeed for that matter the relation
of these bulls to the cows is very hard to express in general figures -
like the above.
Here in fact are only four harems—one has over 100 cows, another
80 cows, the third 60 cows, and the fourth has 8 cows, with 2 bulls
each having only 1 cow.
There are only 6 bulls out of the 8, with any show of service
demanded, yet in fact three of those old bulls are simply overworked,
and the service which should be distributed is not so made. This
average of service rendered is about the same all over the rookeries
to-day, and is entirely out of the normal and proper distribution of
it as 1t was in 1874, and should be now.
To recapitulate-—For Lagoon rookery, July 12, 1913, we find 8
bulls, 250 cows, 250 pups. Season of 1890, 100 bulls, 4,500 cows,
4,200 pups; season of 1874 580 bulls, 18,000 cows, 17,250 pups.
“gh 00'q) 89) ‘o0g'|s ners, grt EE
("gg eased 00%} OJ.) “PI—OSPES
-: een per)
| MOUMUETT BLYDRNZIC 4 iy,
? Wey out Basa oon Ses gt LZ,
é
bony, memmeryy monary“ y
yp “yseme SOAT BO
drt ons'ps “smor) ooogr TB gbe / @
3 ise celia et A Dahl i cate ee :
ay, Chi Pe,
ee) = “Y) 6 SG a
Oy
pone >
Pane cG a %
vc © iy :
SONnOMD JNVT! TWH JBOVWIATIA *
= .<
25 Foek awosh.
‘
Poot
: VILLA
" GE RYE RLING GROUNDS
er Te
a ee iid
ty,
iw i
eRe == oy G on
Py es Daz )
Zoltor Bay \ w f
Fives, en oy
Ba Cs (Sif eonain
7
"ie Rasy ua Gansoxen Reoxenres ff
o* Paw: Sp iP f
awls Taland. Taty 10: 1912, Ais J
Surveyed by HW EMict vd ARG Nag her. ; poy ae 7 /
Agents Ho, Com Bap. Dept Commerce. be Ya ff
. va oa
E
Bw
fcrasis of Ke nwmlaers & Beeedang Gets :-
Juby 10.1418.
Quite Kort wa therbsGv Hrooleras -—
993 fas. 1500 Cows: 13 Soo Tags
0. Geel Kamwew Sookery
Seevitchie Kammen ~ Juss. Bee Claws: aise
Breads Summ Leta.
—
53490—14. (To face page 88.)
wre
3 Boa 4, 60, Cows Ihoro Y
a9.
S
™ \
oe tem 2 og,
Primm wi, pesayud bh a ‘\
fay fees A % Sige.
= ‘eves eal aA
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 89
urvaged. by Heavy VV. E1riwt and
AP.GMasher ; gts Ho GwkB 29. Degt 6
Conmmercoilys, 1919.
VILLAGE COVE
West Landing
90 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Part 3.
Charts of census of fur-seal herd, July 10-2C, 1913, by Elliott and Gallagher, special agents House Com
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.
CENSUS OF THE NORTH ROOKERY.
Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of North Rookery, St. George Island, Pribi- .
Jov group, July 18, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery, when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published official survey made by Henry
W. Elliott, July 10, 1890, and duly published as House Document
No. 175, 54th Congress, first session, pages 51, 53, and 54.) .
We begin our survey of this rookery by taking up the chart of 1890,
at station L, under which no sign of the 1890 chff belt of breeding
seals is in evidence to-day; nor is there any evidence of the hauling
of any seals in the ‘“‘ravine”’ which we found so well indicated on the
chart of 1890. .
From this we proceed to station K, and between station L and sta-
tion K and right on the point under station K we find 11 active
bulls and about 400 cows, with 2 idle bulls. Proceeding from
station K to station J, we find an irregular series of scattered harems,
consisting of a total of 16 bulls and about 610 cows; no young males
in sight, or idle bulls.
We proceed from station J to station I, and within the lines of
the 1890 survey we find 7 bulls and about 149 cows. From station
I to station H is the fest massing on this rookery, and we estimate
therein 30 bulls and about 3,500 cows; stili we see no “‘idle” bulls or
“nolsecatchie” on or around this section.
From station H we proceed to station G, and between those two
stations we find a ‘‘pod”’ of holluschickie containing about 400 to
450, consisting chiefly of yearlings, with, say, 50 2-year-olds, a few
3-year olds, and three or four 6-year-old bulls, and as many “‘ polse-
catchie” or 5-year-olds. At the extreme point (G) we find two bulls
and two harems containing about 36 cows.
From station G we go to station F and find 6 bulls and about 250
cows, all at the surf margin between; no idle or young bulls.
Now proceeding from station F to station E we find 18 bulls and
about 1,200 cows; no idle or young bulls.
From station E to station D we observe about 20 bulls and about
550 cows, with one 7 or 8 year old idle bull, but no “‘polsecatchie.”’
From station D to station C we find nothing, it being an abandoned
bluff. From station C to station B we find nothing, and from B
to A every vestige of the life of the 1890 survey is eliminated.
At station A, looking back, we have this to say: The North Rookery
presents the appearance, as compared with 1890, of a complete elimi-
nation of the surplus breeding male life, the young 6-year-old bulls,
the ‘‘polsecatchie,’’ and the holluschickie, that swarmed on this
ground in 1874 and in 1890 were relatively there.
1 As this is the chief rookery of St. George and one which has had perhaps more attention paid to it
than all of the others, on account of its being so close to the village, the following notes made of it in 1890
contrasting its condition with that of 1874 are timely (p. 54, H. Doc. 175, 54th Cong, Ist sess):
“T came upon this breeding ground to-day, July 19, 1890, after an absence of just 16 years. I find the
topography unchanged, the hauling grounds all grass grown, together with the usual flowering plants
which seem to follow (on all of these declining rookeries) the abandonment of hitherto polished rock and
hard-swept soil traveled over and laid upon by the seals. The breeding animals on the several areas of this
53490—14. (To face page
53490—14.
NORTH ROOKERY == Nace NEO
St Georde Island. be ae Sse : 4S
Surveyed dev 4 1443, re ee 7 EN AS See
wi, AE. Gatasher Rguetts Ho. Com Evp. Deg! Commerce!
Prurlysrs of tly Numloor wa Troestion dru Bretdind fests.
icone Konive Xo Ate. 4G Mand wv ndthang.
Pientts BK = AkKuY He AA Ws : Hoo Cows,
An Wea 8", ~ tb 40 . bio de,
Po © 3G ce - qo des 4g be
Aye eae k igi dour 3fo0 do
Ae HW . OG :- Face “OU AR ew G aa 4°.
Ac G anes & de: a0 do
As E 32 2 18 do: 4200 do
AcE - Me 20 de: 550 do
Aad). “A: = shone ‘nating.
Cavomd Total: — AAD Kas bogs (uae?
(To face page 90.)
Te eS ee
y 7 emia ie Ons
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 91
This rookery in 1890 suffered a loss of only about one-half from
the survey of 1874. The survey made to-day shows a loss of nearly
five-sixths of tts breeding strength since 1874, and it has dwindled
to the following figures in totals for 1913, to-wit:
To recapitulate-—For the North Rookery, July 18, 1913, we find
110 bulls, 6,695 cows, 6,200 pups; season of 1890, 485 bulls, 19,000
cows, 18,000 pups; season of 1874, 2,302 bulls, 38,500 cows, and 35,000
pups. 7
CENSUS OF LITTLE AND GREAT EASTERN ROOKERY.
[Field notes to accompany the charts and surveys of condition of Great Eastern Rookery and Little
Eastern Rookery, St. George Island, Pribilof Group, Friday, July-18, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and
A. F. Gallagher, special agents House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery when comparison is made with that
of 1890 is founded upon the published official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott, July 10, 1890, and duly published as House
ae No. 175, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, pp. 51, 52,
-and 56.
We begin this morning a survey of the rookeries of St. George
Island, at the extreme eastern end of the cliff belts of the Great
Eastern Rookery, starting at station EH, from which we proceed west-
ward to station G, where we find 11 bulls and about 200 cows, plus
11 bulls and about 200 cows, irregularly spread on the beach belt of
rocks under the cliffs. This is all the hfe that now survives there
from the 1890 survey. ret
On the rookery ground from station G to station F we find 75 bulls.
These bulls lie under the base of the cliff, beginning at station G, two
harems deep, but they do not rise on the hill. ‘They are dispersed
over the ground here more: evenly than on any rookery we have
looked upon thus far. It is safe to say the average harem will hold as
good as they did on St. Paul Island. Forty and fifty and sixty cows
to the bull is not an excessive estimate. We find here a total of
about 75 bulls and about 2,700 to 3,000 cows. They are lying just
above the surf wash on the cliff belts and do not rise on the hill at
station G. We see no ‘‘polsecatchie’”’; we see no “‘idle bulls.’’
Between stations G and F, as in 1890, we observe about 25 sea lions,
included among them being four or five big bulls. As we go down, a
pod of holluschickie are alternately sleeping and playing between
the pool and the outer edge of the breeding seals that we have just
enumerated. We see here, between the holluschickie and the breed-
ing seals, two young 6-year-old bulls, being the only idle or separate
male breeders in sight at this rookery. Between the pool and the
foot of the breeding seals that we have just enumerated, we find this
pod of holluschickie numbering at least 2,500 to 3,000. It is com-
posed chiefly of yearlings; with about one-quarter 2-year-olds, and
rookery are in the usual poor form and characteristic of those which I have described on St. Paul—the same
scanty supply of old bulls; no young bulls on the rookery or outside on the water’s edge; large scattered
harems and every evidence of imperfect service. Inall of these forms precisely as they are over on St. Paul.
“Yet this, the chief rookery of St. George, which held 76,250 breeding animals and their young in 1874,
has sufiered a loss of only one-half of its cows and pups—but the bulls, fully five-sevenths of them are miss-
ing. This rookery was the largest on St. George in 1874. It has been so ever since and is to-day; but, large
as it was, there was only one on St. Paul smaller in 1874, the Lagoon Rookery (Nahspeel we can not count),
However, to-day there is still another one smaller, and that is Keetavie, thoughit was twice aslarge as this
North Rookery in 1874. It is an admirable point of seal ground, well drained and free from muddy pools
during rain storms. It is in full sight of the village and only one short half mile’s walk away.”
92 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
a few 3-year-olds added to these; but the great bulk of yearlings,
with two or three 6 or 7 year old bulls, and four or five 6-year-old
bulls and rough 5-year-olds, making the exhibit which we have just
estimated.
We find from station F to station X that the life of 1890 has com-
pletely disappeared; not a harem or an idle bull, or any vestige
of that life remaining. From station X we proceed over the circuit
of the survey of 1890 ending at station A. Passing along here we
find three harems, with about 25 cows only. We also find here one
big bull sea lion.
We now proceed from this station to the finish at station A, where
a thin fringe of the life of 1890 is represented by 6 bulls and about 130
cows, chiefly massed around one bull. We also find here, just be-
GREAT BASTERN ROOKERY
5t tere Island.
Gaeveyed Say 1h 4403, by Howry W Edvott,
wA AF Keviaghu Agt® Ha Com Exp flegt Geman
——
ee eG Ry
1 gs ie of tie wamber awh \ocatow ae Predang ha
Go aT Panton Oty E a8 area AABalls, ma ibe hea
ae Beem aty and E. eit 4 do , 100
ery wma i ” at gaa. ing re
Aneta A!) yer abe
(rand Total f — 10 + fais a 9,845 (an
yond, two additional bulls and about 150 cows, one of the bulls being
an idle 6-year-old bull, again beyond. There are no polsecatchie in
sight, and no other idle bulls.
We now proceed to the finish at station A, and we find there,
directly on it, some 320 cows, chiefly massed around 4 bulls, one
being a 6-year-old; no polsecatchie; no idle bulls; no sign of other
§-year-olds, or any other males in sight.
This closes our review of the Great Eastern Rookery; from this
oint we proceed to take up the 1890 survey of the Little Kast
ookery. We find from station B to station A of the 1890 survey
a total elimination of all life, save two harems—one of about 25
cows and the other of 3 or 4; no polsecatchie in the sea nor at the
rear; no idle bulls; no holluschickie on the ground; but grass and
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 93
vegetation pomp cover the hauling grounds of 1874, so much
so that the pool is being actually sodded over.*
To recapitulate——For Great Eastern Rookery, July 18, 1913, we
find 102 bulls and 3,825.cows, 3,500 pups. For Little East, 2 bulls,
30 cows, 27 pups. Season of 1890, Great Eastern had 112 bulls,
4,500 cows, 4,300 pups; season of 1874, Great Eastern had 714
Beit ait |
Varna Mast Woortey ~ — —-]
Ft bere olan ——— |
Fvesused Wily 49443, by WEN tt ¢ BieCaUaghos |
Apts Foo. Cow. opt. Cammoree,
Suaysis at the Nuwhors A Levcshow ster Poca Feat.
AKovvew ote B. ne. tay wy Bons WN 30 Cows,
bulls, 3,000 cows, 12,500 pups; season of 1890, Little Eastern had
62 bulls, 2,500 cows, 2,300 pups; season of 1874, Little Eastern had
112 bulls, 6,000 cows, 5,450 pups.
1 With regard for the condition and appearance of the Great Eastern Rookery in 1890: On page 56, House
pecuuent is, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, is the following official description of it under date
°o y 20, 1890:
“Tn 1873-74 this breeding ground ranked third in the list of five that were found on the Island of St.
George. To-day it seems to have been the heaviest loser. It has literally dropped down to a mere skele-
ton of its form in my early survey (1873). That extended rocky flat here from which the rookery ground
proper gently rises on the hill slope was one of the most attractive hauling grounds for the holluschickie
on St. George 16 years ago; now its entire surface is covered with a most luxuriant turf: it looks like a
Kentucky hlue-grass meadow.
“J think that this rookery presents the most perfect illustration and eloquent, too, of that ruin and
demoralization wrought by the present order of scraping the breeding lines on all of the rookeries in getting
the daily drives of killable seals. It presents itself so in this plain manner. }
“Tn 1873 there was only 900 feet of rookery sea margin here; 200 feet of this total was a solid massing
of the breeding seals up the hillside from the sea, as shown by the 1874 tint upon the accompanying map.
It was 200 feet deep and contained 20,000 of the 25,000 seals, all told, that then existed at this point. To-day
there is 3,275 feet of rookery sea margin here; a straggling ragged belt, not even a full harem’s width or
depth, except under that side-hill expansion between F and G, where there is, instead of the 200 feet of
Inassing cited above only 30 feet of average depth. This driving by the lessees repeated day after da
has created that long extension of over 3.000 feet to the sea margin of 1874, on this rookery, while the sea
themselves are barely one-third the number they were at first record.”
94 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
CENSUS OF ZAPADNIE ROOKERY.
{Field notes to accompany the chart and survey of condition of Zapadnie rookery, St. George Island
Pribilov group, July 18, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, special agents House Com.
mittee Expenses Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery when comparison is made with that
of 1890 is founded upon the published official survey made by
S - ZAPADNIE ROOKERY
wy Ft heovieTsland
Day i EAL ioth and AF OMadur
Surv hy Sage Bt Comuneree/ .
: Ty 6.41413.
G
i= ‘ f,
Awlmsis dttec Nwantae mA Linertow of cine Dwring Roots.
Nurvew ote. wi B i phe wea
Pia kh Any “UY aay als wy ah00 Cows.
Henry W. Elliott, July 10, 1890, and duly published in House
Document No. 175, Fitty-fourth Congress, first session, pp. 31, 32,.
and 33.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 95
We approach this rookery from station A of the 1890 survey, and
we find that to station B every vestige of the fur-seal herd then
existing in 1890 has entirely disappeared.
There is not a single pod of holluschickie on these grounds. From
station B to station C, where a large hauling of holluschickie was
made in 1890, and thence ranging up the hillside there is not a single
holluschak upon it to-day.
We find from station C to station D a remnant of the hillside rookery
only, consisting of some 2,500 cows and 22 bulls, with only one idle
bull in sight—not a single young 6-year-old or 5-year-old bull in the
water or on the land behind the rookery. This is the most signifi-
eant, complete dearth of all surplus male breeding life that we have
yet met on this survey. The estimate of 2,500 cows is not excessive,
but is very fair. They are bunched together practically, immediately
at the foot of the bluffs, at station D, and are semimassed part way
up the hill, half way to station D.
This completes the survey of the rookeries on St. George Island.
To recapitulate —For Zapadnie rookery, July 18, 1913, we find 22
bulls, 2,500 cows, 2,250 pups. Season of 1890 there were 150 bulls,
6,000 cows, 5,500 pups; season of 1874 there were 559 bulls, 9,000
cows, 8,250 pups.
CENSUS OF STARRY ARTEEL ROOKERY.
{Field notes to accompany chart and survey of conditions of Starry Arteel rookery, St. George Island’
Pribilof group, July 18, 1913, by Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher special agents House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.]
(The condition of the rookery when comparison is made with that
of 1890, is founded upon the published official survey made by
Henry W. Elliott, July 10, 1890, and duly published as H. Doc. No.
175, 54th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 51, 52, and 53.)
As we approach the sea foot of this rookery, we find a pod of at
least 3,000 holluschickie [and on the surf-washed point of Starry
Arteel, 400 or 500 more, mostly yearlings]. We find here one solid
rookery mass; it is the most perfect of its kind to-day on these
rookeries; from the foot of Starry Arteel Hill (of the 1890 survey),
it rests on the same lines of 1890, but still within the outer lines half
way back between station G and station O. On that area there are
about 80 bulls with harems massing in the ageregate at least 4,500 cows.
The most encouraging sign seen here is the advanced movement of
two young bulls with a cow each, lying just 10 or 15 feet outside of
this massed rookery margin; thus they are leading the way for the
overflow next year, which most likely will come to that line. As with
_ 1 The complete disappearance of Zapadnie (St. George) rookery from its chief location and numbers
here in 1873 is clearly exposéd by this survey of 1913, as given above; and that makes the following descrip-
tiom-of the same as it was in 1873 of interest (p. 49, H. Doc. No. 175, 54 Cong., 1st sess.):
“Zapadnie rookery (1873-74: its condition and appearance July, 1874)): Directly across the island (St.
George) from its north shore to Zapadnie Bay, a little over 5 miles from the village, is a point where the
southern bluff walls of the island turn north and drop quickly down from their lofty elevation in a suc-
cession of heavy terraces to an expanse of rocky flat bordered by aseasand beach. Just between that sand
beach and these terraces, however, is a stretch of some 2,000 feet of low, rocky shingle, which borders the
flat country back of it, and upon which the surf breaks free and boldly. Midway between the two points
Gi. e., bluffs and sand beach) is the rookery, and a small detachment of it rests on the direct slope of the
bluff itself to the southward, while in and around the rookery, falling back to some distance, the hollus-
chickie are found.”
This complete elimination of Zapadnie rookery July 18, 1913, from its main location between stations
A and B, where it had been so well located, to that patch on the bluff as found in 1913 is heightened as to
danger by the spectacle presented of some 2,500 cows there now with only 22 bulls to serve them and not
4 young male seal in sight anywhere.
96 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
the other rookeries, barring this exception here, we see the same
complete absence of young, virile male life. There is nothing of the
kind in view. Had there been the usual proportion, a hundred of
these young bulls would be lying outside, all accompanied by a few
cows, In every direction along the entire outer line of this fine rookery
massing—leading the way for the overflow next year. It is believed
by us, however, now, that by letting these creatures alone, as it is
proposed to do and as the law directs, within four years this massing
ee
~ > ; matt: z
ee _ Se ee ee
\ ‘ SS arcane | j
SX Sk. STARRY ARTEEL ROOKERY | 7g \
a Ses __— —.- SAT GRORGE ISLAND
eS Sree Say (9,.q:3, by EY RilicH ma wa
ae reese eee iia Sa
TAS ee e209 Ltd & ‘irae
Pap ‘ : ‘i
a fee 4
Aovtluows of thy Manders md Locstion ofthe one
Beceding Beats daly 'd- 1483
Be Lai Bei Oona Bes *C ,- 80 Bus, yd, 1500 Cows
will have overflowed the boundaries of to-day, and will have reached
those of 1890. This is the only rookery where this solid massing and
steady advance from that massing out, is in actual evidence, and will
be an interesting study to observe its increase during the next four
years. It is in fine shape to-day for making an accurate comparison
with what it shall increase up to within the next four or five years.
To recapitulate: For Starry Arteel rookery,! July 18, 1913, we find
80 bulls, 4,500 cows, 4,200 pups. Season of 1890 there were 220
bulls, 8,000 cows, 7,500 pups; season of 1874,? 975 bulls, 15,250 cows,
14,250 pups.
1 This is the place, just to the eastward of Gulls Pool, and on those low slopes of the bluffs which rise
there from the sea, where Pribilof pitched his first camp on this island after he discovered it in June, 1786.
“Starry Arteel,’’ or ‘‘Old Settlement.”
2 Starry Arteel as it was in 1874 (p. 51, H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.):
“This rookery is the next in order and it is the most remarkable one on St. George Island, lying as it
does in a bold sweep from the sea up a steeply inclined slope to a point where the bluffs bordering it seaward
are over 400 feet high, the seals being just as closely crowded at the summit of this lofty breeding plat as
they are at the water’s edge. The whole oblong oval on the side hill is covered by their thickly crowded
forms. It is a strange sight, also, to sail under these bluffs with a boat in fair weather for a landing, and
as you walk the beach over which the cliff wall frowns a sheer 500 feet there, directly over your head, the
craning necks and twisting forms of the restless seals ever and anon as you glance upward appear as if
ready to launch out and fall below, so closely and boldly do they press to the very edge of the precipice.””
_
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 97
EXHIBIT B.
{The ‘‘ Carlisle rules” of 1896. Same as “‘ Hitchcock rules’? of 1904.]
Specific details of the violation of the “Carlisle rules,” ordered May
14, 1896, which prohibit the killing of “yearlings, and seals having
skins weighing less than 6 pounds.” :
Said rules published on the islands and officially recorded June 17
1896.
Said rules were suppressed and withheld from the knowledge of
the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor from May 31, 1911, to July 30, 1913, by the United
States Bureau of Fisheries.
Said rules were never canceled or amended from 1896 to 1904 by
any authority of record and legal. The Hitchcock rules of May 1,
1904, were the same in effect, and were issued by the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor, then in ignorance of the fact that the Carlisle
rules were actually in effect, but ignored by the United States agents
and the officialism in charge of the islands and by the lessees.
THH CARLISLE RULES.
The regulations of the United States Traesury Department, dated
May 14, 1896, ordered the agents of its Government to prevent the
killing of ‘‘ yearlings and seals whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds.”
These regulations were violated on the islands that year by those
agents of the Government who permitted the lessees to kill more
than 8,000 young seals whose skins weighed less than 6 pounds, Dr.
David Starr Jordan having taken charge of this killing as the ‘ chief”
of the American membership of the Jordan “Joint Anglo-American
Commission,’”’ ignored these regulations and falsified the record of
this illegal killing in his “‘ preliminary report of November 7, 1896,”
“Treasury Document No. 1913,” p. 21. (See Hearing No. 14, pp.
950-951, postea.)
The following order of the United States Treasury Department was
published on the seal islands June 17, 1896 (see p. 14, United States
chief special agent’s journal, St. Paul, Island Alaska, under date of
June 17, 1896), to wit:
On page 14 (Official record of journal of the chief special agent in
charge of the seal islands), this letter is entered by J. B. Crowley,
United States special agent, on page 14 (of the “journal” of this
office), under date of ‘‘Tuesday, June 17, 1896,” and before the
killing was begun, to wit:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1896.
Mr. J. B. CRow.ey,
Special Agent in Charge of the Seal Islands,
Care North American Commercial Co.,
San Francisco, Cal.
Str: I inclose herewith for your information copy of a letter dated the 13th instant,
addressed by me to the Secretary of the Treasury and approved by him, in relation to
the taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and determining the quota of such seals
to be allowed the North American Commercial Co. during the season of 1896. You are
instructed to permit said company to take on the islands during the season of 1896 all
7
DBAGO—14
98 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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.
Respectiully, yours,
C. 8. Hamuin,
Acting Secretary.
True copy:
Henry W. Extiort.
Attest:
A. F, GALLAGHER.
THE PROOF OF VIOLATION OF THE PUBLISHED REGULATIONS OF THE
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, BY ITS LESSEES, IN KILLING YEARLING
SEALS AND ‘‘SEALS HAVING SKINS WEIGHING LESS THAN 6 POUNDS,”
DATED MAY 14, 1896; SAID REGULATIONS BEING CAREFULLY
SUPPRESSED TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE BUREAU
OF FISHERIES FROM MAY 31, 1911, TO JULY 30, 1912.1
The records which show this violation of the department rules and
regulations of May 14, 1896, by the lessees up to date of expiration
’ of their lease May 1, 1910, are:
I. Full details of this violation are found in the London sales
catalogues of Messrs. C. M. Lampson Sons, for November—December,
5896 to 1909, and by the daily entries made of the killing this season
of 1896, and thereafter in the official journal of the United States
Treasury agent in charge of the seal islands at St. Pauls village.
(See poster. )
II. The fact that these rules prohibiting the killing of ‘‘ yearlings”
and seals having sknis weighing less than 6 pounds has been suc-
cessfully suppressed and concealed by the lessees and their associates,
the agents of the Government, is clear when it is known that the
Hitchcock rules of May 1, 1904, were issued because it was not known
then, to their author that they had been published in 1896, on the
islands, and were never cancelled by the department.
On the 27th of July, 1912, Mr. H. W. Eliott testified to the com-
mittee as follows (Hearing No. 14, pp. 950, 951):
Dr. D. 8. Jordan, with the full cooperation of the Treasury Department in 1896-97,
and Commerce and Labor up to 1912, is responsible for the killing of female seals for
their skins by the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska. He went up to these islands
in 1896 and 1897 and- was empowered by the Secretary of the Treasury to fix the
number of seals that might be killed for their skins in those seasons, respectively,
1 COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, April 19, 1912
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives McDermott, Young, McGuire, and Patton.
TESTIMONY OF BARTON W. EVERMANN.
The witness was sworn by the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, you may state your official position.
Dr. EVERMANN. My official position is assistant in charge of the Alaska fisheries service, in the Bureau of
Fisheries, Department of Commerce and Labor.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you desire, you may proceed to submit whatever facts you have for the con-
sideration of the committee.
Dr. EVERMANN. The second charge is that at least 128,478 yearling male seals were killed by the lessee
from 1890 to 1909, both inclusive, contrary to law and the regulations.
In answer to this charge it should be sufficient to say that the law has never made it illegal to kill yearling
male seals; nor has it ever been contrary to the regulations to kill yearling male seals, except in the seasons
of 1904 and 1905, as is shown by the regulations for the various years to which I have called your attention.
Therefore, even if 128,478 yearling male seals have been killed since 1899 (which is not admitted) they could
not have been killed illegally, because there was no law against killing yearling male seals, and there has
been no regulation against killing yearling male seals except in 1904 to 1909.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 99
and to extend the limit of driving said seals to any time in the said seasons he saw
fit.
In 1896 Dr. Jordan reports (Nov. 7, p. 21, Treasury Document No. 1913) ‘‘30,000
killable seals were taken, 22,000 of these, to the best of our information, being 3-year-
olds.”’
Not quite 7,500 of that 30,000 were 3-year-old skins; 8,000 of them were 4% to 5
pound skins or yearlings or ‘“‘eye plaster” skins.! =
‘the driving in 1896 was prosecuted with vigor up to the 28th of July. It was
impossible to drive those seals after the 17th of July, as they were found on the islands
withovt driving, adi lt females ard yearlings, males and females, commirgled, and
it was equally impossible to separate the sexes on the killing grounds before killing
them, so a large number of this forbidden class of seals were so killed and their skins
sold in London as 2 and 1 year-old males. :
Again, in 1897, Dr. Jordan reports (Nov. 1, p. 18, Treasury Document No. 1994):
“* * %* The quota of the year (20,890) is made up practically of 3-year-old bach-
elors. Some 2-vear-olds are killed and some 4-year-olds, but the majority taken
are 3-year-olds.’’
Not quite 7,000 of the 20,890 were 3-year-olds, and in spite of the most desperate
driving, kept up to the 7th of Acgust on St. Pail, and the 11th of August on St. George
Island.
‘ihe CHairMAN. What is the sigrificance of that? I ask because you seem to
place so much emphasis upon it.
Mr. Exuiorr. That is because the ‘‘official” killing season is closed on the ‘‘Ist of
Acgust.’”’ Have you not heard them say that the “‘season closed on the Ist of Avgust”’?
The CHarrmMan. What is the harm in killing until the 7th of Auveust?
Mr. Exuiorr. Becarse after July 20, annvally, you are driving yearlings, and you
can not separate the males from the females in that class. That is the reason why
they should not kill after the Ist of August, and they ‘‘officially” say they do not
lull. It was impossible for the lessees to have so driven and failed to have killed
adi lt female mother seals in any one and all of these drives after the 17th of July.
They were killed and their skins sold in Lordon as 6-pound or 2-year-old male skins.
They were doing it urder my eyes. I saw them doing it, and I stopped them.
The lessees refi sed to take the yearling or ‘‘eye-plaster” skins this year, because
the price for them in 1896 barely paid experses. Otherwise the yearling, 44 to 5
po nd skirs. wo: ld have been taken.
Here we have the official declaration of Dr. Jordan that no yearlings ard females
were killed in 1896 ard 1897, whea the killing was all doce under his eyes and con-
etrol.
No Lembkey there, no Bowers there, but Dr. Jordan, the ‘‘ereat naturalist,’? was
there. “‘branding” seal prps to p:.t the pelagic hunters o: t of n siness, and not put-
ting an end to this illegal brsivess on the islands. [Reading:]
“The London sale catalogues of 1896 and 1897 indict and convict Dr. Jordan of
making a wholly erroneous and improper report to the Government. It is chari-
table to assume that he was ignorant of the facts, and did not realize the gravity of
his error or its far-reaching and injurious effect.
“‘ Therefore this initial responsibility of naturalists with regard to the matter of
driving and killing of yearling male and female seals on the seal islands of Alaska,
and as permitted by the Treasury Department and Department of Commerce and
Labor since 1896, is authoritatively summed up as follows:
“July 20, 1890. Elliott stopped the work of the lessees on the seal islands to-day;
he did so because they were killing mother seals along with 2-year-old males for
their skins; they had been doing so since the 17th of July; the lessees claimed that
they had not intentionally violated the law, since it was impossible to distinguish
the adult females from the 2-year-old male seals in the ‘pods’ when clubbed; it became
imperative to stop the work, therefore, on their own admission.
“November 19, 1890. Elliott describes in his report on page 86 (H. Doc. No. 175,
54th Cong., Ist sess.) with detail the manner in which the seal drives after July 17
sweep up female seals, which are at once hustled into the killings; he sets the date
of July 20, annually, as the ‘latest day’ on which seal driving can be permitted,
Note: 1 Dr. Jordan himself knew that the yearling females hauled out with the yearling males, and
never on the rookeries with the breeding seals. Yet he shut his eyes deliberately to the viclation of the
Carlisle Rules of 1896. Observe the following procf of his knowledge as to what the yearling female does:
The following official entry is made in the Treasury agent’s journal, St. Paul Island, on p. 465, under date
of “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 two-year-old virgin cows
among them. Pod of 1 and 2 year-old seals was driven from the Reef Rookery and was examined with a
view to determining whether or not yearling seals were to be found among these young bachelors. It is
now conceded that yearling females do not haul out on the rookeries but among the holluschickie.”
*
100 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
without the killing of female seals.’’ (Hearing No. 14, pp. 950-951, July 27, 1912.
House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
That this law and regulation of the Secretary of the Treasury in
1896 was deliberately violated, as above sworn to, and upon the
certified London records, so cited by Mr. Elhoit, is clearly shown
by the following amazing official entry made by the United States
Treasury agents in the journal at St. Paul Island Thursday June 9,
1892, and following, to wit (p. 2):
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 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.
Here we find that the agent of the Government deliberately sur-
renders his sworn duty to the agent of the contractors, so that no
check upon their killing can be made or will be made by him or his
subordinates as to the ages or the sexes of the seals taken.
When Dr. Jordan came up here in 1896 with those specific orders
of the Treasury Department, duly posted by the agent of the Goy-
ernment, as above cited, who was the agent of the lessees ?
Mr. J. Stanley Brown,! the very man who, in 1892, as the chief
special agent of the Government, issued that order surrendering to
those lessees all of the Government control of this seal killing.
And he, with the shameful approval of the “‘scientist”’ Jordan, to
get the 30,000 seals allowed them for that year, violated the law and
regulation of May 14, 1896, by taking more than 8,000 yearlings,
which are duly recorded as such in the London sales.
This is the same Joseph Stanley Brown who went over to Paris in
1893 as an “expert,” with John W. Foster, and the other tools of
the lessees—as an “‘expert”’ to plead the cause of the United States»
in behalf of the fur seal of Alaska before the Bering Sea tribunal.
The impression which he made upon that tribunal was not lost; that
court saw him clearly (as it did Foster), as the thinly disguised agent
of the seal contractors or lessees of the seal islands. He pulled off
this disguise next year and went up to the islands as their (the
lessees’) hired superintendent.
That this deliberate violation of the rules of the Treasury Depart-
ment did not cease, and that these rules were annually violated
thereafter, the following sworn testimony was given to the committee
May 31, 1911 (Hearing No. 1, p. 10):
Mr. Exuiorr. Now, gentlemen, I am going to take up the question of what a yearling
fur seal is, because upon a distinct, positive understanding of that you alone can act
in this business. You can act just as well upon the facts and figures which I lay
before you as if you were upon the islands, and I will prove it.
But before doing that, allow me to state that following that memorandum to Senator
Burnham I wish to introduce and read the official assertion that yearling male seals
were killed for their skins in 1900 and 1901, and the official denial in 1903 that such
seals ever were killed for their skins by the lessees of the seal islands—1903 is the year
the Senators saw them killed.
The assertion, 1901, report Special Treasury Agent Lembkey—you know him, Mr.
Nagel; he is your agent in charge to-day.
1 In his official report dated St. Paul Island, Nov. 1, 1896, Chief Special Agent I. B. Crowley says:
“The killing is entirely directed by the agent of the lessees, who directs the grade of seal to be taken.’’
Thus the order of J. Stanley Brown of July 8, 1892, was acquiesced in by both Crowley and Dr. Jordan,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 101
THE ASSERTION.
{Report of Special Treasury Agent Lembkey, in charge of seal islands of Alaska, to Secretary of the
Treasury, August, 1901.]
The lessees during the season of 1901 took skins ranging from a maximum of 10
pounds to a minimum of 5 pounds. Previous to 1900 the lowest limit of weight was
6 pounds: but a 5-pound limit was established that year, and during the past season
as many 5-pound skins as could be found were taken. (Fur Trade Review, New York,
Sept. 1, 1901, p. 452.)
Who ordered that “5-pound limit?”” Who gave the lessees author-
ity to ‘‘establish” that limit in open violation of the specific order
not to do it, dated May 14, 1896?
Why, the seal contractors did; they needed no ‘“‘authority;” they
just used the ‘‘order” of the “United States chief special ageut,
J. Stanley Brown,” who, as their own tool in 1894 (also to date), and
who, with the consent of their other tools in public service, ‘‘estab-
lished” this illegal and improper killing.
All through these official journals of the United States agent’s
office at St. Paul Island, from 1896 to 1901, there is not one word
written which even hints at a “5-pound limit” being “established”
in 1900; not a line from the Secretary of the Treasury which alters
or amends his order of May 14, 1896; and, up to 1904, these agents
of the Government swore to the House Committee on Expenditures in
the Department of Commerce and Labor that no rule or regulation
of the department had ever been made against their ‘killing year-
lings and seals whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds.”’
But, this order against the killing of ‘‘yearlings and seals having
skins weighing less than 6 pounds”’ has been in effect ever since May
14, 1896, and has been annually violated by the lessees ever since
that date up to May 1, 1904, when the Hitchcock rules were published
to gain the same end, in ignorance of the fact that they had been
ordered by the department years ago, and had been suppressed and
violated by the lessees and the United States agents up to that date.
The status of J. Stanley Brown invoked as a defender of the policy
of the Bureau of Fisheries, his part, first, as an agent of the Gov-
ernment, in 1892-93, and his action in that office, before he entered
the service of the seal contractors, is well set out as follows:
The officiaism of the Bureau of Fisheries, when up before the
House committee, and testifying as to conduct of the work of kill-
ing seals by the lessees under its direction, had the following to say
of one of their ‘‘scientific’’ supporters. They introduced him to the
committee as follows (Hearing No. 10, p. 519):
Dr. EvermMann. 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 connected with the proper management of the herd. Among these
gentlemen I may mention the following:
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.
Why was Stanley Brown never produced by the Bureau. Why
has he never been in evidence? Good reasons, and they are found
written upon the official journals of the United States Treasury
agent’s office at the village St. Paul Island, to wit (p. 2):
St. Paul Island, Thursday, June 9, 1892.—Mr. J. Stanley Brown arrived and took
the place of Maj. Williams, as the United States agent in charge of the seal islands.
¢
102 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Friday, July 8, 1892.—The entire control and management of the killing grounds
and the killing of all 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.
Here you see the entire control of the killing as it may be done on
islands, the selection, the driving, and time, all surrendered by this
sworn agent of the Government to the lessees! He actually reduces
his office to a cipher and gives the lessees absolute control of the
public business with which he is entrusted.
By what authority does Mr. J. Stanley Brown, as the ‘‘chief special
agent in charge of the seal islands,’ make this improper order for
himself, and his subordinates? Hehasnone; noagenteverhad. Yet
in 1896, when the lessees faced the specific orders of the Treasury
Department of May 14, 1896, this man Brown appears on the scene,
as the ‘‘superitendent of the N. A. C. Co.,” and actually nullifies
the same!
When a Democratic administration caused the retirement of Mr.
J. Stanley Brown as the United States chief special agent in charge
of the seal islands early in 1893 and placed a Democratic agent in
his stead (one J. B. Crowley), the lessees at once sent Mr. Brown up
and back to look after their interests in their own name for the simple
reason that he had proved himself to them as a subservient and
trustworthy tool, even when in the service of the Government and
as its sworn servant.
He took charge of the lessees’ interests on the islands, June 6, 1894,
and this man has been either up there ever since as the agent of the
lessees down to the expiration of their lease in 1910; or he has been
serving the lessees as a “‘scientist’’ before and behind the Bureau of
Fisheries in Washington, D. C., when not on the islands.!
Of course, Dr. Jordan never interfered with Stanley Brown’s
direction of the killing, after those unpleasant orders of Secretary
1 That Mr. J. Stanley-Brown was busy with these officials and ready to serve them and his masters, the
lessees, up to date of Dec. 16, 1909, is clearly confessed by the Bureau of Fisheries itself in the following
letter duly produced July 13, 1911, to wit (Hearing No. 5, p. 226, House Committee on Expenditures in the
Department of Commerce and Labor):
Mr. TOWNSEND. Dr. Hornaday, there has been placed in evidence here a letter written by Barton W.
Evermann, to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce and Labor. I will
read that letter to you:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washingion, December 16, 1909.
The COMMISSIONER:
The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Campfire Club, of New York, had inaug-
rated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation designed to prevent the re-leasing of the
sealing right, the cessation of all killing on the islands for 10 years except for natives’ food, and to secure the
opening of negotiations with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon, of Montana, one
of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two calling for the publication of fur-seal
correspondence and reports since 1904.
As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and of the 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 cor-
rectly 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, havmg in view the object stated.
BARTON W. EVERMANN.
Mr. TOWNSEND. Do you know of any effort that was made following this suggestion of the ‘‘advisability ”’
of having matters ‘‘explained”’ in New York.
Mr. HorNADAY. I do. I was told by Mr. Madison Grant, chairman of the executive committee of the
Zoological Society, that Commissioner Bowers had called upon Prof. Osborne and laid before him copies
of the correspondence that had passed between the Secretary of Commerce and Labor and the Campfire
Club, with a statement that was in the nature ofa protest against what I was doing in the matter, and with
& sort of general request that my activity in the matter should be curbed; in fact, as it came to me, “That
Hornaday should be suppressed.’”’? I do not know that any such language was used by the commissioner,
but that was the general impression that came to me.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 103
Carlisle appeared, and were posted June 16, 1896. The understand-
ing must have been perfect between them; for Jordan ' in his reports
of 1896-97, and final work of 1898, gives Mr. Jos. Stanley Brown
ereat ‘‘credit” for the ‘‘valuable aid rendered to this work of inves-
tigation,” by the said Brown.
To show the committee indisputably how this work of nullifying
these Carlisle rules was done on the isiands, immediately after their
publication thereon, we have made the following copy of the record
of the daily killing by the lessees on the Pribilof Islands during the
season of 1896:
Copied from the official entries made in the journal of the United
States agent in charge of the Island of St. Beale These entries show
that 30,000 seals were killed in June and July, 1896, and that prac-
tically every seal driven was killed to get the quota. In other
more, all the seals driven, no matter how large or how small, were
illed.
I. This official showing makes it clear that the ‘‘Carlisle orders”’
of May 14, 1896, brought to the islands June 8, 1896, were not
obeyed either by the lessees or the Government agents in charge.
And this official record also substantiates the London sales records
of the sizes of these 30,000 skins as taken, and sold there in 1896.
II. And this record also bears out the natives’ sworn statement
to Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher, agents of the House Committee,
Expenditures Department of Commerce, in St. Paul Village, July
24, 1913, that ‘‘not before 1896 did we ever receive orders to kill the
small seals; we began first in 1896, to do so,” 1. e.—‘‘In 1896, we
commenced to take the 5-pound skins to the best of our recollection.”
(See Exhibit E, postea.)
Copies of the official entries made by the chief special agent of the
seal islands of Alaska in the daily journal of the treasury agent’s
office, on St. Paul Island, which covers the driving, killing, and tak-
ing of 23,842 skins on St. Paul Island and 6,158 on St. George Island
during the season of 1896 (total, 30,000):
Tuesday, June 23, 1896.—A seal drive was made from the west side of Northeast
Point, 1,414 seals were killed. All the skins were accepted. (P. 16.)
Wednesday, June 24, 1896,—A seal drive was made from the east side of Northeast
Point, 1,408 seals were taken. The skins were all accepted by the lessees. (P. 16.)
Saturday, June 27, 1896.—A seal drive was made from Reef, 2,076 seals were killed
ea Arig skins were accepted by the lessees, and salted in the village salt house.
(a en ae
Wea. June 29, 1896.—A seal drive was made from English Bay and Tolstoi,
1,398 sealskins were accepted and salted in the village salthouse. (P. 17.)
Thursday, July 2, 1896.—The drive made from the west side of Northeast Point,
1,374 seals taken and accepted. (P. 17.)
1 The value of Dr. Jordan’s “authority” for this illegal and injurious work on the islands is modestly
given to the House Committee by United States Commissioner Bowers as follows (pp. 109-111, Hearing
No. 2, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 9, 1911):
Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-seal service, are as follows:
* # * * * * *
Dr. David Star 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
pobished report in four volumes is the most comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever
een 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.
x * * * * *
Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting the best talent I could; I expected probable criticism.
Mr. TOWNSEND. I am not criticizing you now. ig Fe
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.
oe
104 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Friday, July 3, 1896.—A seal drive was made from west side of Northeast Point
resulting 1,109 skins. Two ‘‘road skins” not accepted.' (P. 18.)
Monday, July 6, 1896.—Seal drive made from Lukannon and Zoltoi sands, 1,535
seals were taken and accepted by the lessees. (P. 18.)
Tuesday, July 7, 1896.—A seal drive was made from Zapadnie resulting i im 784 seal-
skins being accepted by the lessees. (P. 18.)
pfednesdiy, July 8, 1896.—A drive was made frem Polavina, 961 skins taken.
Gz. 18: )
Friday, July 10, 1896.—Seal drive from Reef and Zoltoi, 1,271 sealskins being
taken. (P.19.)
July 11, 1896.—Jordan arrives, with his party, Thompson, etal. (P. 21.)
Tuesday, July 14, 1896.—Seal drive made from east ‘side of Northeast Point; i ,169
seals taken. (P. 29. )
Wednesday, July 15, 1896.—Seal drive made from Reef and Zoltoi. The drive and
killing was attended by commission and officers off the Albatross.2_ (P. 22.)
Thursday, July 16, 1896.—Seal drive made from English Bay and Tolstoi; 1,138
killed. (P. 22.)
Tuesday, ia 21, 1896.—Seal drive made from west side of Northeast Point; 808
seals were taken. (On the 22d, east side driven; 1,047 seals taken.) (P. 23.)
Thursday, July 23, 1896. —Seal drive from Half Way Point; 585 seals taken. (P. 23.)
Saturday, July 25, 1896.—Seal drive made from Lukannon, Ketavie, Zoltoi, and
ie 1,630 seals taken. Up to date 5,858 have been taken ‘on St. George Island.
23
Monday, July 27, 1896.—Seal drive from Middle Hill and Tolstoi; 504 seals were
killed, being 112 short of the number required (30,000) to complete. the quota. In
order to complete the same a drive was made from Lukannon rookery and the 112
seals secured. (P. 24.)
Sunday, August 23, 1896.—The Homer left at 3:30 p. m.; had on board 30,000 seal-
skins; 23,842 from St. Paul and 6,158 from St. George. (P. 473.)
Then we find that in 1897 this taking of the small skins, as above,
in 1896 was continued, as the explicit admission is made of that many
“‘5-pound”’ skins were taken in the following entry, made in this
journal, to wit: The United States special agent says:
Monday, July 5, 1897.—A drive of seals was made from Reef and Zoltoi with the
following results: Killed, 703, * * * Many of those turned off as too large in the
early part of the season were killed to-day, and I noticed a desire on the part of the
Teese agent to secure both small and large skins as the seals came along. Man
were killed whose skins would weigh 10 pounds and over, while, on the other hand,
many were taken whose skins would weigh from 5 pounds to 64 pounds each,
That this killing by the lessees on the islands was actually without
restraint on the part of Lembkey and his official assistants is con-
fessed most unwillingly in the followmg statement, made September
30, 1909, by Geo. A. Clark in his official report to the Bureau of
Fisheries (and which report U. S. Commissioner Bowers suppressed),
to wit (pp. 829-866, of Appendix A; House Committee on Expendi-
tures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911):
(Original report examined by commissioner Oct. 8. Turned over to Mr. Lembkey
Oct. 9.)
REPORT ON CONDITION OF FUR-SEAL HERD, 1909.
Hon. Grorce M. Bowers,
Commissioner of Fisheries, Washington, D. C.
Srr: I have the honor to submit herewith my detailed report on the condition of
the fur-seal herd on the Pribilof Islands, resulting from the investigations of the past
summer in accordance with your instructions of May 15, 1909, as follows:
It is on the killing field, however, that the great need of a euiding and controlling
hand is shown. In 1896- 97 the Gov: ernment agents ordered the drives. 3 This season
1 This is the only record of rejection of skins—“‘ Two road skins not accepted.’? Only two skins missed
out of the 30,000 that they killed in 1896, or rather the 23,842 seals killed on St. Pauls Island (6,158 on St.
George) during the season of June-July, 1896. A clean sweep.
2 This is all of the entry —(H. W. E.)
3 But Chief S sae Agent Crowley says, Nov. 1, 1896, that the lessees have entire control of the killing
and selection of seals, in his official report. for that year. See p. 78, antea.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 105
they have been entirely in the hands of the lessees. The young males set aside for
breeding purposes having been marked, the lessees have been free to take what they
could get, and this resulted in their taking practically all of the bachelors appearing
on the hauling grounds. In the eagerness to see that no possible bachelor escapes,
the edges of the rookeries are encroached upon and cows included in the drives,
Fifty oi them appeared in drives toward the close of this season. <A drive that can
not be made without including cows should be omitted. A drive which appears
on the killing field with 15 to 20 cows in it shouid be released rather than incur the
danger of clubbing any such cow by mistake. There should be some one in charge
of the herd with power and discretion to do this.
There has been on the killing grounds since 1900 a constant struggle on the part of
the leasing company in the closing years of its concession to get every possible skin
from the declining herd. Its work has heen aided by a high arbitrary legal quota and
by a lowered minimum weight of skin, enabling it to gradually anticipate the quotas
of succeeding years by killing younger animals. As a result there has occurred in
these years probably the closest killing to which the herd has ever been subjected.
Aside from the diminished supply of male life on the breeding grounds in 1904, this
is shown in the fact that though the herd has declined two-thirds in size, the quota
has never fallen more than one-third in size as compared with that of 1897.
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.
Respectfully submitted.
GEORGE ARCHIBALD CLARK,
Assistant in Charge of Fur-Seal Investigation.
Sranrorp University, September 30, 1909.
This explicit confirmation of the charges which Elhott had made
against the work of the lessees and their confederates so disturbed
Bowers and the lessees, who were scheming to renew the lease, May
1, 1910, that the foilowing disposition of Clark’s report was made,
to wit:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BurEAvU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, November 17, 1909.
Mr. W. I. LeEmpBxey,
Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D. C.
Str: Assuming that you have read and carefully considered the fur-seal report
recently made by Mr. George A. Clark, who visited the islands during the past summer,
I desire that you prepare a statement of your views regarding the report, particularly
with reference to such data and conclusions contained therein as do not agree with
your understanding of the facts and conditions.
Kindly let me have this statement in form convenient for use at the conference of
the advisory board next Tuesday
Respectiully, Gero. M. Bowrrs, Commissioner.
Lembkey did his work of ‘‘explaining” to that advisory board
the errors of Clark’s report so well that when it assembled in Bowers’s
office, November 23, 1909 (‘next Tuesday’’), thefollowing official and ~
“unanimous recommendation’’ was made that the lease be renewed:
Mr, Bowers. On November 23, 1909, there was a meeting of the advisory board
with the fur-seal board and the Commissioner of Fisheries and Deputy Commissioner
of Fisheries (Dr. Hugh M. Smith), at which were present also Mr. Chichester and
Mr. George A. Clark. After mature deliberation these gentlemen unanimously agreed
upon the following recommendations:
106 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
1. It is recommended that the agent in charge, fur-seal service, shall, under the
direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, have full power to limit or restrict
the killing of fur seals and blue foxes on the Pribilof Islands to any extent necessary
and that no specified quota be indicated in the lease.
2. It is recommended that for the present no fur-seal skin weighing more than 84
pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be taken, and that not more than 95 per cent of the
3-year-old male seals be killed in any one year.
Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting the best talent I could; I expected probable
criticism. .
Mr. TownsEnD. 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 Ne. 2, pp. 110, 111, June 9, 1911,
House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.)
And still more, it will be observed that Mr. George A. Clark attends
this ‘‘unanimous”’ conference, as above recorded, and becomes party
willingly to that renewal of the lease and that close killmg on the
islands. The following official ‘‘ orders”’ explain it, perhaps:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND: LABOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, November 1, 1909.
Mr. Geo. A. CLARK
Stanford University, Cal.
Str: Your orders of May 7, 1909 (No. 547), are hereby extended to April 1, 1910,
and you are instructed to come to Washington for the purpose of explaining and fur-
ther elucidating your report on the condition of the fur-seal herd based on your obser-
vations during the past summer.
You will be allowed a compensation of $10 for the time so employed and your
necessary expenses of travel and subsistence during the performance of such duty,
payable from the appropriation ‘‘Statistics and methods of the fisheries.”
Respectfully,
Gero. M. Bowers, Commmissioner.
EXHIBIT C.
The Kate and Anna—Oficial records which declare her to have been
a pirate sealing schooner around St. Paul Island, in July and
August, 1890—Said schooner is the same ‘‘just and valid” claim-
ant against Russia which H. H. D. Peirce, as ‘‘Third Assistant
Secretary of State,’ and C. H. Townsend, as ‘sealing expert,
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries,’’ put up at The Hague, June—July, 1902,
and which puts her in the same class with the Jas. Hamilton Lewis,
another pirate ship also vouched for by Peirce and Townsend at
The Hague, June-July, 1902.
Extracts from the official records which declare the Kate and Anna
to have been a pirate ship, and not properly vouched for at The
~Hague by Peirce and Townsend, who presented her as follows:
Mr. Perrce. I was requested to act by one George R. Tingle, who was the attorney
of record for the owners and crew of the James Hamilton Lewis; and in the case of the
C. H. White and the Kate and Anna, the same request was made by James Embry,
who was the counsel of record for the C. H. White and the Kate and Anna. (Hearing
No. 12, p. 781, May 29, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department
of Commerce and Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 107
OFFICIAL RECORDS IN RE THE ‘‘ KATE AND ANNA’’! (SEALING SCHOONER)—PROOF THAT
SHE WAS A “PIRATE” AROUND ST. PAUL ISLAND, 1890—TAKEN TO THE HAGUE BY
PEIRCE AND TOWNSEND IN 1902, AS A ‘‘JUST AND VALID CLAIMANT”’ AGAINST RUSSIA.
In re Kate and Anna. Official entry in St. Paul’s journal by J. P.
Manchester, United States special agent in charge (p. 24):
August 8, 1890.—At lla. m. U.S. revenue cutter Rush in sight at east end of the
island after the schooner; 12.30 p. m. she captures schooner about 10 miles east of the
village. Good deal of excitement among the people over this, as this schooner has
been around and near the island many times this summer. About 7 p. m. Capt.
Sheppard came ashore and reported the schooner was Kate and Anna, 582 skins.
The ‘‘pirate” schooner Kate and Anna. Special Agent Jos. Mur-
ray enters in St. Paul official journal (p. 275):
Thursday, September 4, 1890.—Antone Melovidov telephoned from N. E. P. that the
schooner was anchored there and had three boats out with hunters killing seals within
half a mile of land.
From Cross Hill he watched them through a glass and counted 10 or 12 shots fired
for one seal secured by the hunters.
It was the same schooner that has been around the islands for several weeks and
which was overhauled last week and released by the Rush. The name of the schooner
is the Kate and Anna, Capt. Lutzen, of Portland, Oreg.
Saturday, September 6, 1890.—Antone is still at N. E. Point and telephoned this
morning that the same schooner (Kate and Anna) had anchored there last night and is
still there to-day. (P. 276.)
Sunday, September 7, 1890.—Schooner Kate and Anna still at N. E. Point fishing for
seals within | mile of the shore. Thus far there has not been any attempt made to
land. * * * J feel humiliated as I watch the pirates shoot the seals almost within
range of the rifle in my own hands. (P. 277.
Monday, September 8, 1890.—Schooner still at N. E. Point. No attempt made to
land yet, nor do they need to come ashore for seals so long as they can lower nets down
and capture all they can carry off without serious protest by anyone. (P. 277.)
September 9, 1890.—Antone Melovidov returned from N. E. Point and reported the
departure of the schooner. (P. 278.)
September 10, 1890.—Revenue cutter Bear anchored here at noon from Oonalashka
and several of her officers came ashore for a few hours. * * * The Bear weighed
anchor and went down to N. E. Point. (P. 278.)
September 11, 1890.—The Bear is anchored at N. E. Point. (P. 278.)
September 15, 1890.—The Bear left to-day for St. George and Oonalashka. (P. 281.)
September 16, 1890.—The Bear returned from St. George this afternoon and anchored
Aten Pomt- (Ee. 281.)
September 17, 1890.—Capt. Healy says that he anchored at N. E. Point last night,
because he knew a schooner coming to St. Paul would be more apt to anchor there
than at any other point around the island. (P. 281.)
September 18, 1890.—The Bear left N. E. Point last night and we suppose went to
Oonalashka. (P. 282.)
In view of this record officially made by agents of our Government,
it is interesting to review the testimony given below by other agents
of our Government who indorsed this pirate ship, as a proper claimant
against Russia, in 1902.
H. H. D. Peirce, under oath, May 29, 1912, tells the House com-
mittee that he took the case of the Kate and Anna to The Hague as
a just and valid one, when the official records of the Treasury
Department declared her in 1890 to have been a pirate and then busy
tains the seals near our own islands (less than one-half mile from
shore).
1 This is one of the four vessels handled by those public agents (Peirce and Townsend), viz, Jas. Hamilton
Lewis, the C. H. White, the Kate and Anna, and the whaling barque Cape Horn Pigeon, the Lewis being
& notorious pirate owned by Liebes, lessee, seal islands.
108 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
{Hearing No. 12, p. 780, May 29, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor.] 7
The CuatrmMan. Did you represent anybody before The Hague tribunal in the
dispute with reference to the James Hamilton Lewis case? |
Mr. Perrce. I did, sir. I represented the owners, officers, and crew of the Cape
Horn Pigeon, an American whaling vessel, arrested in the Sea of Okhotsk; the James
Hamilton Lewis, an American sealing vessel, arrested in the Bering Sea; the C. H.
White, an American sealing vessel, arrested in the Bering Sea; and the Kate and Anna,
another sealing vessel, also arrested in the Bering Sea; and subseqeuntly I was ap-
pointed, as a matter of formality, in order to give me a status in the court, nominal
counsel for the Government in the arbitration.
The CHarrMAN. First of all, how did you happen to be employed to represent these
various interests before The Hague tribunal?
Mr. Perrce. As secretary of legation I had become very familiar with all of the
cases, for the Government had repeatedly instructed the legation to urge upon the
Russian Government the settlement of these claims, and so I had become very fa-
miliar with them. They commenced in the year 1892, if my memory serves me aright,
and I was appointed in 1894, and then, after the cases had been brought to an agree-
ment to arbitrate by Ambassador Tower’s convention, which, owing to his absence, I
signed, the attorneys for the Cape Horn Pigeon and the James Hamilton Lewis and
subsequently the C. H. White and the Kate and Anna, requested the Secretary of
State to permit me to act as counsel and requested me to so act.
C. H. Townsend, as an “expert” of the United States Bureau of
Fisheries, aided him.
[Hearing No. 12, p. 788, May 29, 1912.]
The CHAIRMAN. You finally setiled. You may tell the committee what your com-
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 CHarrMAN. Did anybody else receive any compensation?
Mr. Perrce. I do not know. I presume James Embry got a large compensation,
but I do not know.
The CHarrman. Who went with you to The Hague Tribunal?
Mr. Perrce. Mr. Townsend. I forget his initials.
The CHarrmMan. Charles Townsend.
Mr. Perrce. He had been employed, I think, by the Treasury Department when
the care of the seal herd was under the Treasury Department.
The CHarRMAN. He was sent with you as an expert?
Mr. Perrce. As an expert.
The CHarrMaANn. To assist you in presenting the case?
Mr. Perrce. Yes, sir; as a witness.
The CHarrMan. Did he receive any compensation?
Mr. Perrce. That I do not know. He received, if my recollection serves m2 aright,
his traveling expenses, which I think I paid to him, to be refunded out of the award.
{Hearing No. 12, p. 758, May 24, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor.]
Mr. MappEN. The question is whether Mr. Townsend is in a position to know the
facts.
The CHarrman. I thought he was, because he was with Mr. Peirce at The Hague
Tribunal. Were you in the employ of the Government at that time, Dr. Townsend?
Dr. TowNsEND. I was in the employ of the Fish Commission, and was transferred
temporarily to the State Department.
The CHarrMan. I do not want him to make a statement that he can not substantiate,
but I would like to know now, Dr. Townsend, in what capacity you were at The
Hague Tribunal in this matter?
Dr. TowNnsEND. 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 109
EXHIBIT D.
The condition of the natives’ houses, and natives on St. Georges
and St. Pauls Islands. Season of 1913. Inspected July 17-22,
by Henry W. Elhott, Andrew F. Gallagher, agents of the House
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.
THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSES OF THE NATIVES OF THE SEAL ISL-
ANDS, IN THE VILLAGES OF ST. GEORGE AND ST. PAUL, JULY
P7292 1913;
During the progress of the testimony given to the House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor
(hearing No. 3, pp. 144, 145, 146, and 162) the question below was
raised and answered (House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor):
The CHArRMAN. One moment, please; I will ask you some questions, and then
you can make your statement. I had information that was gathered from the cor-
respondence and the terms of the lease under which the Commercial Cc. eperated,
that on June 30, 1910, there was paid out by the Government $23,969 for houses for
the natives up there, and if my conclusions are correct the lessees should have paid
that instead of the Government. VW hat do vou know about that?
Mr. Ertrrorr. Your conclusions are cerrect. These houses belonged to the natives
when -the old lease expired; then when the new lease was invited the condition
was imposed by the Secretary of the Treasury that whoever got that lease should
do as much for the natives as the old lessces had done; that is. they should house
these people, put them into the dweliings, and pay for it themselves. The North
American Commercial Co. by the terms of its lease entered into that covenant with
the United States on March 12, 1890, and agreed to do as much for the natives as
the old lessee: had done: they had to give them these houses free from any recourse
on the United States as part of the obligation of their own in getting the lease.
The CuarrMAN. Then I understand that the natives are entitled to the houses?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes, sir; the houses were given to them in 1878 and 1880.
The CuarrMANn. I am more particularly interested in the question of this payment
of the sum of $23,960.
Mr. Extiorr. The North American Co. assumed that obligation for the old lessees.
The old lessees never entered into that obligation with the United States; that was a
matter of their own gift to the natives in 1872 and 1874-1878.
The CuarrmMan. But the Government appears to have paid it in the end?
Mr. Ex.tiotr. The Government bought nothing, either from the old lessees or the
new lessees; but the new lessees were obligated to buy these houses or else build
new ones and to turn them over free from any recourse on the United States Govern-
ment; that is, to give them to these natives.
Mr. Youne. The lease was made on the Ist of May, 1890?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; but the preliminaries were agreed upon on March 12, 1890.
Mr. Youne. This seems to be the language of the contract:
“That it will also furnish the said inhabitants a sufficient number of comfortable
dwellings in which said native inhabitants may reside, and will keep said dwellings
in proper repair, and will also provide and keep in repair such suitable schoolhouses
as may be necessary, and will establish and maintain during eight months of each
year proper schools for the education of the children of said islands. * * * All
of which foregoing agreement will be done and performed by the said company free
of all costs and charges to said native inhabitants of said islands or to the United
tates.
Now, is not that lease subject to this construction: That while the lease was in
operation it was the duty of these lessees to furnish and repair these houses for the
natives, but at the termination of that lease, is it not a fact that the houses built by
these lessees became their own property?
Mr. Exuiorr. No, sir; because in 1872 and 1874 the first of these houses was vol-
tntarily built and given to these natives by the old lessees. By 1881 they were all
housed free of any charge by the old lessees, as a gift to them in which the Govern-
ment had nothing to do, either of suggestion or action. That agreement between the
old lessees and the natives as to these houses was not thought of at the time that that
110 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
lease was granted; but when they came to renew the lease the old lessees put up the
plea that the lease ought to go to them, because they had gone into this thing volun-
tarily and furnished the houses as a gift to the natives, and that that ought to be con-
sidered in theirfavor. Therefore, when the new bidding was invited, the new bidders
had to bid to do just as much voluntarily, without any recourse on the United States,
as the old bidders had done. Therefore, the new lessees bid to do exactly what that
lease calls for; that is, to furnish these houses free, just as the old lessees had furnished
them, without any recourse on the United States.
Mr. Younae. This contract between these lessees and the Government has no pro-
vision as to where the title to these houses shall go after the expiration of this lease.
Then, the question with me is, to whom do these buildings belong?
Mr. Exuiorr. They belong to the natives, but you can not give them title, because
the houses are on a Government reservation. The new company had to buy them
from the old company or else build new ones. This was a gift by the old company
not thought of at the time their lease was granted. It was their own voluntary gift.
This was officially reported on in the Monograph on the Seal Islands, published by the
Tenth Census, in 1880. You will find it on page 24.
Mr. Youne. What was the amount the new company paid to the old company?
Mr. Ex.iorr. Something like the amount you have mentioned.
Mr. Youne. $23,960?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir. The old company had to give up that lease, but the new
company had to assume every obligation that the old company had incurred, and this
obligation of $23,960 they assumed without recourse on the United States.
The Coarrman. Do we understand you to say that the Government paid this amount
when, in fact, the old lessees were liable to pay it?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; and they did pay it.
Mr. McGruiicuppy. How would the old company be lable for it after the lease was
canceled and the Government assumed the business itself?
Mr. Extrorr. The old company passed away with the first lease, of course, but the
obligation of the old company was assumed by the new one.
Mr. McGrmuicuppy. But they would not be under any obligation to house the
natives after the lease was canceled?
Mr. Exriorr. But before they got the lease they had to assume that obligation of
the old company.
Mr. McGriuicuppy. You mean that the last company assumed it?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGiiuicuppy. Under the terms of that first lease, the lessees would not be
liable to house any of the natives after the lease expired?
Mr. Extiorr. They were not liable before the expiration, but they volunteered to
do so and did so.
Mr. McGmurcuppy. But this $23,960 was paid out after the cancellation?
Mr. Exziorr. But that was a part of the terms or conditions under which they
secured the lease. Before they canceled the lease they had to assume this obligation
of the old company.
Mr. McGiuuicuppy. But there was no obligation to build houses aiter the lease
expired?
Mr. Extrorr. No; they were, nevertheless, obligated to take the same stand that
the old company took and they agreed to assume all of the obligations of the old
company.
Mr. McGuuicuppy. I can not see how the lessees would be liable for the housing of
any of the natives after the lease was canceled.
Mr. Exutiotr. They are not liable; but these houses have belonged to the natives
since 1873 and 1874-1878.
Mr. Bowers. Who built them?
Mr. Exurorr. The old company.
Mr. Bowrrs. Who bought them from the old company?
Mr. Exriorr. The new company.
The CHarrMan. Do I understand you to say that when the new company got the
lease there was a condition imposed that they would pay for these houses?
Mr. Extrorr. Certainly; to either pay for the old company’s houses or build new
ones without recourse on the United States Government.
The CHarrmMaAn. And that is the way the proposition stands?
Mr. Exxrorr. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMANn. Here are some papers relating to this subject. I do not know
whether they should be put in the record, but that matter can be considered later
by the committee Please examine this paper and identify it.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 111
Mr. Extrorr. That is the official list of the natives’ houses.
Mr. Youne. I was somewhat confused by this list of houses for the natives. The
law on the subject is contained in section 9 of the act approved April 21, 1910. which
reads as follows:
*Sec. 9. That the Secretary of Commerce and Labor shall have authority to appoint
such additional officers, agents, and employees as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this act and the laws of the United States relating to the seal fisheries of
Alaska, to prescribe their duties and to fix their compensation; he shall ikewise have
authority to purchase from the present lessee of the right to take seals on the islands
of Saint Paul and Saint George. ata fair valutation to be agreed upon, the warehouses,
salt houses. boats, launches, lighters, horses, mules, wagons, and other property of the
said lessee on the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, including the dwellings of
the natives of said islands; he shali hkewise have authority to establish and maintain
depots for provisions and supplies on the Pribilof Islands and to provide for the trans-
portation of such provisions and supplies from the mainland of the United States
to the said islands by the charter of private vessels or by the use of public vessels of
the United States which may be placed at his disposal by the President: and he shall
likewise have authority to furnish food, shelter, fuel. clothing, and other necessaries
oi life to the native inhabitants of the Pribilof Islands and to provide for their comfort,
maintenance. education, and protection.’’
I believe that ought to be inserted in the record in connection with what we have
gone over.
The Cuarrman. I understood from Mr. Elliott’s statement that it was his theory
that the buildings had to be accounted for by the lessees and should not have been
purchased by the Government.
Mr. Extiorr. Certainly; they do not come into the “plant’’ at all.
The CHarrMAN. So that I think perhaps it is well enough to have that in.
Mr. Extiorr. The native dwellings that belong to the “ plant’’ should be purchased.
The terms of this lease which bound the lessees to furnish these
native houses to the natives free of all cost to the United States, and
also keep them in repair during the period of the lease free of all cost
either to natives or the United States, are found as follows in the
body of the contract signed March 12, 1890, to wit (see p. 467, Hear-
ing No. 10, House Committee on Expenditures of the Department of
Commerce and Labor):
That it will also furnish to the said inhabitants 80 tons of coal annually, and a suffi-
cient number of comfortable dwellings in which said native inhabitants may reside;
and will keep said dwellings in proper repair; and will also provide and keep in repair
such suitable schoolhouses as may be necessary; and will establish and maintain dur-
ing eight months of each year proper schools for the education of the children on said
islands, the same to be taught by competent teachers who shall be paid by the com-
pany a fair compensation, all to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury; and -
will also provide and maintain a suitable house for religious worship; and willalso
provide a competent physician or physicians and necessary and proper medicines
and medical supplies; and will also provide the necessaries of life for the widows and
orphans and aged and infirm inhabitants of said islands who are unable to provide
for themselves; all of which foregoing agreements will be done and performed by the
said company free of all costs and charges to said native inhabitants of said islands or
to the United States.
There is no ambiguity in this clear specific obligation of the lessees
to furnish these native houses to the natives free of all cost at any
time to the Government of the United States or to the natives them-
selves. That payment to them, by Secretary Nagel, of $24,000 for
those houses, is not warranted and should be recovered.
In the first place, these houses are small wooden one-story frame
structures, 20 by 10, on the sills, and no attic, with an outer shed
or ‘“‘calle dore”’ over the entrance: the entire cost, when first built
by the Alaska Commercial Co. in 1876 (and then given by that
lessee to the natives), was between $210 and $225 per dwelling.
112 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
They have been well painted and kept in tolerably good shape
year after year by the lessees, up to the close of their lease, May 1,
1910, then by the Government up to date, as the following inspec-
tion will attest:
They all have one living room 10 by 10, and a bed room 8 by 10,
with that outside shed or ‘‘hall”’ (‘“‘callidore’”’). There is a little vari-
ation only in this place, by the fashion of attaching this calidore to
the main building: some bringing it out flush, to the front line of the
house, others setting it back; some have widened it more, and so
on; the average callidore is 5 by 14 feet.
These dwellings are too small for those natives who have several
children, since they allow of only one small 8 by 10 bedroom, that
compels them to sleep crowded, and
often badly crowded, into these
small rooms.
Nevertheless, these people when
asked by us made no complaint of
being insufficiently fed and clothed
or warmed by the Government
under existing orders and regula-
tions. The annual sum allowed
them for food, clothing, and fuel
G of Tete Aone). should not be less than $35,000,
which is a fair amount for that
end. They should not be reduced
from that sum, for the annual maintenance of 302 souls up here, in a
very simple life, requires it.
INSPECTION OF HOUSES ON ST. PAUL ISLAND, TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1913.
This inspection was made by Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher, agents
House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, |
accompanied by Nicoli Kuzlof, interpreter.
House No. 1.—Government warehouse.
House No. 2, Jacob Kochutin.—Tenant in Unalaska. Outwardly
this house appears to be all right.
House No. 3, Dorofai Stepetin.—House in good condition. Hus-
band in Unalaska working.
House No. 4, Vassilisa Peeshnikov, widow.—Floor of colidor needs
repairs. Balance of house in good condition.
House No. 5, Simeon Nozikov.—House in good condition.
House No. 6, John Merculiev.—Floors repaired last winter. House
in good condition.
House No. 7, John Fratis.—House in good condition.
House No. 8.—Government house, not occupied.
House No. 9, Mary Emanof, widow.—Tenant not in; door locked.
House No. 10, Alexander Galateanof.—Roof leaks: Floors all right.
Tenant claims his house is too small.
House No. 11, Paul Merculiev.—Tenant on watch. House locked.
Nobody home.
House No. 12, Appolon Bordokufsky.—Tenant in Unalaska work-
ing. House locked. House looks all right from outside.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 113
House No. 18, Neil Oostigof.—Tenant in Unalaska working. House
looks all right from outside.
House No. 14, John Meseekin.—House in good condition.
House No. 15.—This house is a native’s shop and club house.
House No. 16, Eleta Bogdanof, widow.—House in good condition.
House No. 17, Mokenty Seedick.—Floor is rotting. Otherwise the
house is all right.
House No. 18, Nicola Kuzlof.—House in good condition. The coli-
dor leaks somewhat.
House No. 19, Stephan Rukovisnikof.—Roof bad and leaks. Every-
thing else all right.
House No. 20, George Shaishnikov.—Door locked. Tenant absent,
in Unalaska.
House No. 21, Mike Kushin.—House in good condition.
House No. 22, Mike Kuzlov.—Roof leaks. Floor all right. Other-
wise house all right.
House No. 23, John Krukoff.—House in good condition.
House No. 24, George Korchugin.—Roof leaks. Floor all right.
Otherwise house in good condition.
House No. 25, Elari Stepetin—Roof leaks. Floor all right.
Otherwise in good condition.
House No. 26, Vlass Pankof.—Roof leaks. Floor bad.
House No. 27, Nikita Hapov.—Roof leaks, floor bad, and sills rot-
ting.
House No. 28, Theodore Seedick—House in good condition.
House No. 29, Oleana Gromov, widow.—House in good condition.
House No. 30, Matroona Balaxine, widow.—House in good condi-
tion.
House No. 31, Paul Merculiev—House in good condition.
House No. 32, John Stepetin.—Hall floors are rotten. Roof is all
right and house in good condition otherwise.
House No. 48.—Government laboratory.
House No. 47, John Kachootin.—Sills of floors are rotten surround-
ing the house. Roof is all right. Otherwise the house is in good
condition.
House No. 46, Metrofan Krukov.—Roof leaks. Floors all right.
Otherwise house in good condition.
House No. 45, Katrina Krukov, widow.—Tenant in Unalaska, but
the son says the floor is bad. The roof is all right and otherwise the
house is in good condition.
House No. 44, Parascovia Kozlof, widow.—Roof bad, otherwise the
house is in good condition.
House No. 43, Carp Buterin.—House in good condition.
House No. 42, Paul Kozmivmikof.—Roof and floors bad.
House No. 41, Peter Oostigov.—House in good condition.
House No. 40, Zenovia Kochootin, spinster.—Floors bad, but roof all
right. Otherwise house in good condition.
House No. 39, Alezander Melovidov.House in good condition.
House No. 55, Peter Tietov.—This is the best house in the village.
House in very good condition.
House No. 54, Neetor Kushin.—Roof leaks. Floor is all right.
House No. 53.—An empty house, in very bad condition; simply a
shack, out of repair.
House No. 52, Porfirt Pankof.—House in good condition.
53490—14_8
114 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
House No. 51, Zachar Tretof—Floors are bad.
House No. 50, Constantine Booterim.—Root is bad.
House No. 38.—An abandoned house. Rotting sills; roof gone,
merely a shack.
House No. 87, Conrad Krukof.—Root is bad, floors all right. Other-
wise house in good condition.
House No. 36, Ivanlie Kozerof—Roof bad, floors bad, and sills -
rotten.
House No. 85, Neon Tiretof—House in good condition.
House No. 34, Trefan Kochootin.—Tenant in Unalaska. House
locked. From outward examination it appears to be in good con-
dition. Natives have a bowling alley between houses 34 and 33.
House No. 33, Theodore Kochootin.—House in good condition.
House No. 56, Acolena Tratis, widow.—Needs shingling. Other-
wise house in good condition. Natives have a library and billard
room, which they constructed and hold in their own name, and also
a town or public hall, in which they hold meetings, dances, and work
on their boats, ete.
Recapitulation—July 1-30, 1913. St. Paul’s village. There are
50 families living in these houses with 196 souls, men, women, and
children. There are 24 families lining in the houses on St. George
Island, with 106 souls, thus showing a native population of the Seal
Islands on July 1, 1913, of 302 souls.
They are the same people, and living just as they were, in 1890,
and as fully deseribed in House Document 175, Fifty-fourth Congress,
first session, pages 109-127.
INSPECTION OF HOUSES ON ST. GEORGE ISLAND, THURSDAY AFTERNOON,
JULY 17, 1913.
This inspection was made by Messrs Elliott and Gallagher, agents
House Committee Department of Commerce, accompanied by Messrs.
Procter and Hatton, and Drs. Mills and Murphy, agents of Bureau
of Fisheries.
House No. 1, Demetri Lestenkoff—Some repairs should be made to
sills. Sills rotten and should be replaced.
House No. 10, Alexander Galanin.—Mr. Procter states from his
own knowledge that this is one of the houses on which the roofs were
repaired, reshingled, and resheathed.
House No. 9, Anatoli Lekanoff—House in good condition.
House No. 2.—Unoccupied, but in good condition.
House No. 7, Demetri Philomonoff.—House in good condition.
House No. 8, Andronic Philomonoff.—Made repairs under the floor
of calidor, last fall, 1912. This house is in fair repair.
House No. 6, Stepan Lekanoff—Addition put on house about five
years ago. House is in very fair condition and repairs slight.
House No. 4, John Galanin.—House in good condition.
House No. 5, Nicoli Merculioff—House in good condition.
House No. 12, Mike Shane.—House in good condition.
House No. 13, Peter Prokopiof—With the exception of sill, which
is rotting, the house is in-good condition.
House No. 14, Simeon Philimonof.—House is in good condition
except roof on calidor leaks.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 115
House No. 15, Paul Swetzof—House is in good condition, but
needs slight repairs.
House No. 16, Ripsimian and Wassa Malavansky (widows).—
House in good condition.
House No. 17, Mike Lestemkof—House in good condition.
House No. 18, Nicoli Malavansky.—Needs slight repairs to sills.
Otherwise in good repair and well kept.
House No. 19, Isidor Nederazof—House in good condition.
House No. 20, Alexander Merculioff and Zoya Swetzof—Both
portions of house in good condition.
House No. 21, John Merculioff—House needs to be shingled.
Floor all right, except under calidor needing slight repairs. Other-
wise in good condition.
House No. 22, Joseph Merculiofi—House in good condition.
House No. 23, George Merculioff—House in good condition.
House No. 11, Emanuel Zacharoff—House in good condition.
Recapitulation.—Twenty-four families, 106 souls, live in these
houses as above; July 17, 1913.
EXHIBIT E.
Original signed copy of the testimony of the native sealers on St.
Paul Island as to the conduct of sealing by the lessees under the
direction of the United States agents since 1890 to date; said
testimony being signed by them after it was read from the typed
ages to them in Aleut, by the interpreter, George Kochergin,
Saks 25, 1913, and original notes of a public meeting held by the
natives, in the town hall of St. Paul Island, Wednesday evening,
July 23, 1913, 8-10 p. m., regarding the conduct of the sealing and
condition of the seal herd, etc.
Original signed copy.]
QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO, AND ANSWERED BY, NATIVE SEALERS IN
THE MATTER OF SEAL KILLING.
Natives’.Town Hatt,
St. Paul Island, Alaska, Thursday, July 24, 1918—8-10 p.m.
Present: Messrs. Henry W. Elliott and A. F. Gallagher, agents of
Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce, House of
Representatives, who called this meeting for this evening.
The following natives were also present: Carp Bouterin, age 60;
Peter Oustigof, age 48; Nenn Tetoff, age 43; Porfirio Pankoff, age
50: Peter Tetoff, age 48; Fedosay Sedick, age 67; Elary Stepetin,
age 46; Alexander Galaktionof, age 39; and Nicholai Kozloff, age 25;
George Kochergin acted as interpreter. ]
The following questions were put. to the natives, through. the
interpreter, who, in turn, made the following answers on behalf of the
~ Katives:
_Q. Do you remember the work of killing of seals in 1890, when Mr.
hott tallied it on this island?—A. Yes.
Q. Were you a sealer then?—A. Yes.
_Q. Do you remember how all the small seals were turned away and
not taken until the last two days of that season’s work?—A. Yes;
we remember. |
116 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Q. When, after this year, 1890, did you get orders to kill those
small seals—to kill all of them that came in the drives ?—A. In 1896
we commenced to take the 5-pound skins, to the best of our recollec-
tion.
Q. Who directed this work of killing the small seals (molodets) on
the killing grounds ?—A. We do not remember; but J. Stanley Brown
was the company’s agent at that time.
Q. Did the Government agents object —A. We do not remember.
Q. Did the Government agents supervise and tally this killing of
small seals at any time from 1894 to 1904?—A. Yes.
Q. When the small seals were ordered killed how much blubber was
taken with the skins?—A. We got orders to leave some blubber on
those skins, and they still have it at this time.
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 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. How many food seals did you kill last year ?—A. Their skins are
in the salt house. We do not remember the exact number.
Q. Have you ever driven “‘holluschickie” (bachelors) from the
“Jaas butschie” (rookeries) ?—A. Carp Booterin says he has not been
out for a drive for a long time, but Neon Tetoff says that he went out
to drive the seals after Carp’s time, and the seals are going close to
the cows, because they are getting small.
Q. Did you use whistles to start them out ?—A. We used to use
whistles, but not lately.
Q. How often have you driven them from the rookeries in this
manner ?—A. We stopped using whistles about 20 years ago, but we
do not know exactly.
Q. Have you ever reported the killing of female’ seals to the Gov-
ernment agents?—A. When we clubbed the seals we would tell the
Government agent, and then the Government agent would tell us to
be careful about the cows and not club them.
Q. If so, what did they say ?—A. “Be careful and not hit them on
the face; not hit the cows.” If there were any cows in the pod we
used to let them go if we knew it.
~ Q. Do you remember when the Senators (Dillingham, Nelson,
Burnham, and Patterson) came here in 1903 ?—A. Yes.
Q. Were you one of the natives that killed seals for them, to see how
you did it+—A. We were all there. .
Q. Where did you drive those seals from that (August 3) morning,
for this killing to show the Senators ?—A. From the reef. We started
to kill seals at 5 o’clock in the morning, but we do not remember the
time when we had the drive from the reef.
Q. Who directed the work?+—A. The Government agents and the
company agents. The Government agents were Mr. Lembkey ‘and
Mr. Judge, and the company’s agents were Mr. Ridpath and Mr. Alls.
Q. After Senator Nelson found three female carcasses which your
party had killed, did you look for any more+—A. We did not watch
for it. We did not pay attention to it.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 117
Q. Did the Government agents?—A. We do not know what the
Government agents did.
Q. Have you ever seen a Government agent, since 1890, look over
the killing grounds for female carcasses ?—A. The Government agent
has looked for carcasses, as he gave us instructions not to kill the
females. At this time, too, we are all looking for them.
Q. Have you ever seen a Government agent examine them ?—A.
Yes. Carp Booterin saw them lift them up and examine them. The
agent goes through the carcasses and looks for the cows, and when
he finds a cow he examines it to make sure of it, and when he finds
it is a cow he gives orders to look out for the cows.
Q. When you club a seal or when you skin one, do you know how
old it is?—A. We all know it.
Q. Do you ever speak to your fellow workmen about these matters
when the day’s work is over, as to sizes, ages, numbers, etc., of the
seals killed and skinned ?—A. Carp Booterin says he used to talk
with the other men, but now he has been turning it over to a younger
man. The others all say they talk it over.
Q. When the ‘‘green”’ or fresh skins are put in salt and then
bundled for shipment, are those bundles heavier after salting or
lighter 2—A. The bundles of skins get heavier, because the salt is
inside.
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
eau 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 the
air. Otherwise they do not. 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 Geo. Korchugin, in
Aleut, and our answers to them wm 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 BurTerin, ALEX. GALAKTIONOF,
ELARY STEPETIN, Peter TETOFF,
PorFirio PANKOFF, Frposay (his x mark) Srepicx,
Nicnoxiat Kozuorr, Neron TETorr.
PETER ONSTIGOF,
St. Paunt Istanp, ALASKA,
Village of St. Paul, Town Hall, Friday, July 25, 1918.
_ 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. Exxiorr,
A. F. GALLAGHER.
118 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Notre.—Confirmatory of the natives’ account as before given, that
the lessees, after turning away the ‘‘small seals” in 1890, began in 1896
to take them all as they drove, is the following order of the Secretary
of the Treasury, entered in the Treasury Agent’s Journal, St. Paul
Island, Wednesday, June 17, 1896, p. 14, to wit. This order pre-
vented the lessees then from taking yearling seals. It reads:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D. C., May 14, 1896.
Mr. J. B. CROWLEY,
Special Agent in Charge of the Seal Islands.
Str: I inclose herewith for your information copy of a letter dated the 13th instant,
addressed by me to the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by him, in regard
to the taking of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. * * * The killing of yearlings and
seals whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds is prohibited.
Respectfully, yours, C. S. Hamuin,
Acting Secretary.
This is the same Mr. Hamlin who, as Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, landed on St. Paul Island August 3, 1894, and became
aware of the distinction then as drawn against killmg yearlings. He
issues this order in 1896, having been informed that the lessees had
resolved to get them if they could not fill out their annual quota of
30,000 seals as allowed them in 1896. This order stopping the taking
of small seals by placing the limit at 6 pounds shut out all the year-
lings completely, and beyond the power of the lessees’ agent to con-
ceal that taking, if he attempted to do so. It shut out the “‘long
yearlings” and the ‘‘short” 2-year-olds also. In spite of this
order, Dr. Jordan allowed the lessees to kill and take over 8,000 year-
lings in 1896.
By some official manipulation the lessees in 1900 were permitted to
take ‘‘every 5-pound skin that could be found,” or every yearling
that hauled unless a ‘“‘runt”’ and worthless.
This was checked in 1904, May 1, by the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules,” which
have not been entered on the official log here, and which have been
steadily nullified ever since they were published up to the end of the
lessees’ killing under their lease, May 1, 1910.
A. FG
TRANSCRIPT OF STENOGRAPHIC NOTES MADE OF
NATIVES’ STATEMENTS AT A PUBLIC MEETING
IN THE VitLAGE Hatt, St. PauL VILLAGE,
St. Paul Istand, Alaska, July 23, 1913—S& p.m.
Thirty-four of the natives were present at this meeting.
STATEMENT MADE TO THE NATIVES BY MR. ELLIOTT:
Natives and people of St. Paul Island: We have called you to
meet us to-night. We have been sent up to these islands by a com-
mittee of the United States House of Representatives, charged with
the duty of looking into the condition of the seal rookeries, and all
other public affairs here, connected with the sealing business.
We are soon to return to Washington, and report to that commit-
tee the findings of fact as we shall get them.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 119
We want to hear your answers to several questions which we will
ask you to make this evening, and we intend to have those answers
given to the committee just as you shall give them to us.
(The following questions were asked of the natives at this public
meeting in regard to the past condition of the seal herds, and the
following replies were given by the natives, through the interpreter,
George Kochergin.)
Q. Do you remember the visit to this island of Prof. Elliott in
1890 ?—A. Yes; they do in 1890.
Q. Do you remember the meeting held then in the Treasury agent’s
house here, which he called for the natives ?—A. Karp Buterin remem-
bersit. Fedosay Sedick also remembers it. A number of others say
they remember the meeting, but were not present. Sedick is the only
man who was present at that time.
Q. Do you remember what the older natives told him then, about
the past. condition of the fur-seal herd ?—A. Karp Buterin says they
had not been called at that time to the agent’s house and can not
remember what the old men said to Prof. Elliott, because they were
not there.!
Q. Has anybody ever disputed their assertion as to that condition
since then, on this island, that you can name ?—A. Unable to answer,
since they were not present.
Q. When did you last drive seals from “Zapadnie” ?—A. Long
ago, in the days of the old Alaska Commercial Co.; not since then.
Q. When did you last drive seals from ‘‘ English Bay” ?—A. The
last drive was made in the days of the North American Commerical
Co., but do not know the year, but quite a long time ago.
Q. When did ‘you last drive seals from “‘Zoltoi Bluffs”? ?—A. Over
10 years ago.
Q. When did you last drive seals from ‘‘Polavina”’ ?—A. During
the time of the North American Commercial Co.; over 10 years ago.
Q. When did you last drive seals from “ Dalnoi” ?—A. About 20
years ago.
Q. When did you last drive seals from ‘‘West of Cross Hill” ?—
A. Eighteen or nineteen years ago.
Q. When the orders were given to you in 1900, to take “all of the
small seals that could be found,’ what did the natives say to the
Government agents ?—A. They do not remember.
Q. Have the natives ever been called upon to express their views
of the condition of this fur-seal herd since Prof. Elhot’s call to them,
in August, 1890?—A. Once. in 1906, when Mr. Sims was up here,
when the natives asked for a meeting. They told him that the seals
were getting small, and also talked to him about the sealing schooners.
They say Mr. Sims told them he was on the rookery, looking at the
seals, and Sims told them the seals were afraid of him, and just as
soon as they saw him all the seals went into the water, and he told the
boys to look out for the seals, to take care of the seals. They say
Mr. Sims asked them what the seals were afraid for and went right
in the water. They replied that by painting the rocks on the rook-
Eee nend counting them and chasing them about, they had gotten
afraid.
1 The notes ofjthis 1890 meeting are published in H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong,, 1st sess., pp 195-197.
120 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Q. Do you remember the visit of Dr. Jordan to this island in 1896—
O77 A. Yes.
Q. The lessees took every seal that they could get in 1896, 30,000.
Did Dr. Jordan supervise that killmg on the ground, day after day,
as it was done?—A. They did not see him. They saw him once in
a while on the killing grounds, but not often.
Q. Was he there on the killing grounds more than a few hours, all
told, during the whole season ?—A. (See answer to previous question.)
Q. Did he ever watch and tally a killing of seals?—A. (See answer
to second last question.)
Q. Who tallied that podding and killmg when he was there in
1896-97 ?—A. Only the Government agents.
Q. Was it done at all?—-A. They were counted by the Government
agents, but they did not see Dr. Jordan do so.
Q. Do you remember when the natives first began to drive the
holluschickie off from the rookeries where they had hauled out among
the cows’—A. They do not remember the year, but they remember
that it was when they started to count the seals and the pups upon
the rookeries; but before that, they say, they remember that those
cows came among the seals in August.
Q. Did you ever use whistles when you drove those young seals
out from the shelter of the rookeries?—A. No. They used to use
them, but do not use them now. ‘They just run in and yell and cla
their hands. Most of them do not remember that they used them,
only the older men.
Q. Did you ever report that work to the Government agents ?—
A. Yes; it was always reported to the Government agents. The
Government agents told them to look out and not kill cows. They
all know the cows, but they go to drive at 12 o’clock midnight, when
it is dark, and they can not see whether there are cows out among the
holluschickie, and that is why they have been taking them. In day-
time, when they haul up the holluschickie, if there are cows amon
them, they separate the cows as much as they can. They did not te
the Government agent that they did not like to do that, but if they
drove a cow among the seals they always told the agent of the Goy-
ernment. They say the Government agent told them to look out
for that kind of drives. They say they said nothing about that to
the Government agent, but the Government agent told them not to
make that kind of drives, but to look out for it. They made them
because they could not help it, as it was sometimes done in the dark.
The chiefs ordered them to make the drives. All those chiefs are now
dead. When they were asked to make these drives, they told the
Government agents they could not help but take cows, and they
also told it to the chiefs, but they did not make the drives where the
cows were. Karp Buterin says that the drivers do not go too near
to where the cows are. He says those cows were that way when the
company was here, and at that time the company did not bother
the cows, but when they started counting the seals that caused the
cows to get mixed up with the seals.
Q. Who gave you orders to go in among the cows and drive out
those small seals—holluchickie?—-A. The chief; and the chief gets
his orders from the Government agent, but in the company’s time
they had been getting orders from the company’s agent. The com-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 121
pany’s agent would get permission from the Government agent, and
the cen pany agent wculd give orders to the chief.
Q. In 1890 those natives who did this rookery hustling were paid
extra for that work. Was that payment by the lessees continued
by them to the end of their lease in 1909 2—A. No.
Q. Have you ever driven seals off from Sea Lion Rock so that the
company could get ‘them ?—A. No.
Q. Have you regularly killed seals on Sea Lion Rock every year,
and that work done for the company so that it would get the skins ?—
A. Just for food, and the skins for the company.
Q. Where have holluschickie ever hauled on the islands where
they could not be secured for their skins ?—A. There is no such place’
They mention one place at Zapadnie, but there are none there now.
Q. Is there a single place on either island where they have ever
hauled in which you did not drive them off, if you could not kill
them there ?—A. There is no such place.
Q. You were ordered to drive the holluschickie off in 1890, when
Prof. Elliott was here—did you stop that driving at any time since,
when the seals hauled out?—A. They used to do it in the time of
the Alaska Commercial Company, but not now.
Q. When a pup is newly born, what do you call it (June and
July) —A. A little black pup.
Q. When a pup seal sheds its black hair, and puts on its gray coat,
what do you call it then (October and November) ?—A. A little seal,
a gray pup—‘‘cautig.”
. When the pups all leave the islands here, next November,
what do you call them when they come back here next year ?
A. Small holluschack, small. bachelors, or ‘‘malinkie hollus-
chickie.”
Q. Then when they come back as 2-year olds, the next year, do
you call them holluschickie (or bachelors) ?—A. Holluschickie or
bachelors—2 year olds.
Q. What is a “‘pol-seecatch,’—is it a young 5-year-old male ?—
A. A 5-year-old.
Q. Why do the cows lay down so close to the surf now, on the
rookeries /—A. Because of the counting of them. They can not
make them stay in one place.
Q. Do you remember, any of you, how much higher they laid
above the surf wash in 1874-1890 ?—A. There were plenty of them.
They could not count them. They laid up higher.
Q. When you drive up the holluschickie from near and close to
the cows, do you get cows in the drive?—A. (Answered as above.)
Q. Can you tell a 2-year old cow from a 2-year old holluschak ?—
A. They all have the same kind of hair and look alike. It is pretty
hard to tell them apart unless they pick them up and handle them.
Q. Do you remember how the skins were ‘‘loaded”’ with blubber,
in 1890%—A. Karp Buterin says he remembers it.
Q. Have you skinned as much blubber from the seal ever since ?—
A. Yes. They put it on thick ever since.
Q. Do you remember the orders in 1900 when ail the little seals
were taken for the first time since the company began to take
them?—A. They do not remember. They had an epidemic. The
old men have died and the young men do not remember.
122 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Q. Who gave those orders to you—was it the Government agent
or the company agent?—A. (See preceding answer.)
(Announcement was made that if the natives wished to ask ques-
tions of the representatives of the committee, those questions would
be answered.)
The INTERPRETER. They want to know if the men from Washing-
ton got permission to paint the rocks and rookeries and to count the
seals. They say they disturb the seals in that way, and they want
to know if they have permission to do that.
Mr. Exxiotr (through the interpreter). The best answer for me to
make is to say that a new administration has taken charge, and that
until that administration knows what has been done here, nothing
will be done until we get back. ‘That is the reason we are asking
these questions, to find out from them what they know of the past
work here, and that they can answer these questions without the
least hesitation or fear. We have a treaty now with Japan, with
Canada, and with Russia which will stop all sealing at sea for fifteen
years. We have a law which stops all killing of seals in these islands
for the next five years, except that needed for natives’ food.
EXHIBIT F.
ANALYSIS OF THE SIZES AND WEIGHTS OF 400 FUR-SEAL SKINS, TAKEN
JULY 7, 1913, ON ST. PAULS ISLAND, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF FISHERIES; THIS MEASUREMENT AND
WEIGHT DECLARES THE FACT THAT SMALL SKINS ARE SYSTEMATIO-
ALLY ‘“‘LOADED’”’ WITH BLUBBER, THUS GIVING THEM WEIGHTS
WHICH CONCEAL THEIR REAL SIZES AND AGES.
The United States Commissioner of Fisheries tells the House
Committee that the skins taken by order of the department on the
Pribilof Islands are classified as to size and age by their weights
on the islands and in London.
Mr. Parron. You mean it is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the
selling in London?
Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the
skins for the United States Government.
Mr. Patron. And they pay on that weight?
Mr. Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those
weights.
Mr. Exurorr. 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, House Committee on Expenditures in the
Department of Commerce and Labor.)
Chief Special Agent Lembkey affirms the same to that committee:
Mr. Lempxey. These skins, which were sent to London during the years 1909 and
1910, were weighed by the factors after their arrival in London and the weights found
to correspond with those taken on the island. As this factor, Lampson & Co., is
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 accuracy.
So far, therefore, as concerns compliance with the regulations and the law in the
killing of male seals, no malfeasance can be proven, because not only the records 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 weights laid down by the
instructions of the department have been complied with as closely as it is possible
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 123
for human agency to do so. The weights of skins taken on the islands show this,
and futhermore these weights have been verified in London by an independent and
responsible body of men. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 374, 375, Apr. 13, 1912.)
Mr. Lempxey. We have found on the islands that the most reliable way of gauging
seal skins so as to classify them into different ages is that of weight, of weighing the
skins. We have very reliable data showing that 2-year-olds seldom, if ever, weigh
less than 5 pounds, and we also have data which gives 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.)
In re the salt weights and measurements of 400 fur-seal skins taken
July 7, 1913, on St. Paul Island, Alaska, and recorded July 29, 1913
The following order of procedure was adopted and reduced to
writing July 29, 1913, by Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher, agents,
House Committee, Expenditures Department of Commerce.
A copy was given to the United States agents in charge of the Seal
Islands, Messrs. Chamberlaint and Hatton, who attended and
assisted in the work as thus conducted by Messrs. Elliott and
Gallagher at the village salt house, St. Paul Island, Tuesday, July
29, 1913, from 9 a. m. till this work was finished at 6 p. m., same day.
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 Com-
merce, 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 best workers in salting and
bundling sealskins, in the community.
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.
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 aforesaid, without any suggestion or interfer-
pecs tron or by anyone during the progress of their work to its
ish.
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.
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
1Mr. Chamberlain being ill was duly represented by Messrs. Hatton ,Clark, Whitney, and Lembkey.
SS
124 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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.
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.
The natives selected nine of their best men, who took turns in salt-
ing and bundling the skins. No one spoke to them as they did this
work, or made a suggestion even as to ow they should prepare these
skins for shipment in salt.
Each skin has a leather tag strung to it by one or the other of its
flipper holes; on this tag is the number stamped indelibly and so
identifies it in the bundles as recorded.
Table showing the record and system of recording salted fur-seal skin measurements and
weights which was adopted by Special Agents Elliott and Gallagher in the Government
salt house July 29, 1918, when making this record of those green weights and salt weights
and measurements of 400 fur-seal skins taken by order of Bureau of Fisheries on the island
of St. Paul, July 7, 1913.
| |
By H. W. Elliott and || | By H. W. Elliott and
By W.I. Lembkey for A. F. Gallagher for || By W.I. Lembkey for} A. F. Gallagher for
. S. Bureau of Fish- House Committee on US: Bureau of Fish- | House Committee on
erles, taken July 7, Expenditures in the eries, taken July 7,| Expenditures in the
1913. Department of Com- 1913. | Department of Com-
merce, July 29, 1913. | merce, July 29, 1913.
|
Tagged No.| Green Meas- Noe | Salt weight || Tagged No. | Green | Meas- No. | Salt weight
ofskin. | weight. ure. | of bundle. ofskin. | weight. | ure. of bundle.
| | | |
5 Lbs. ta ree | bss Oz. pes ee Of, Inches. ‘ Lbs. Oz
a} 6 ist) 80 \ a 13 14 we) ih | 34 } 45 1a
rt eee a ee | a 15 9 a1] 5 1h) 33 |} 26 Sate i
my) faa] Bhs) wl BB) BUR) Bho] aa
eT BN al ia Belo) ole rl
Gs 8B he BN Nona a fo el Tee ae
Bee ae ae oh) ae Beep oe RG Da
eee a ras a dee 8 ee
gee Nel. ae oll | a
re aes ee a ee ee I
ae| 5 s4| aut 1) 16 2 ou| 4 af| a2 f | 2 5
ao] 4 | af 2] 1 9 i33| 4 ak aaa |f | BB
aoe) 2 las], aso Bel Ae
smal 6 2 | gat | 1 22] fms] 6 im] a7 tf B] 2
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 125
Table showing the record and system of recording salted fur-seal skin measurements and
weights which was adopted by Special Agents Elliott and Gallagher in the Government
salt house July 29, 1913, when making this record of those green weights and salt weights
and measurements of 400 fur-seal skins taken by order of Bureau of Fisheries on the island
of St. Paul, July 7, 1913—Continued.
By W. I. Lembkey for
. S. Bureau of Fish-
eries, taken July 7,
1913.
Tagged No.| Green
of skin. weight.
Lbs. Oz.
4292 7 3
4358 6 3
4679 Pt
4412 5 14}
4369 6 64
4444 1 OF
4654 6 98
4382 6 43
4723 7 8t
4241 4 81 |
4229 5 34
4323 Dieael
4462 6 64
4300 7 23
4342 6 53
4660 5 12% |
4755 6 7
4751 6 1
4392 8 43
4622 ie ie
4705 7 31
4497 6 9h
4295 6 134
4715 6 0
4418 5 123
4695 6 43
4761 Sik
4700 5 44
4742 fete)
4228 4 42
4226 5 8
4642 6 23
4456 Sioa
4673 6 8
4629 7 3%
4209 6 2h
4721 7 8%
4240 4 52
4356 6 7 |
4290 |. 5 3
~ 4709 8 52
4750 5 154
4316 6 132 |
42041 6 113 |
4640 6 10
4641 5 132 |
4632 Ge
4249 5 4
4219 6 44
4282 | 7 3
4287| 7 6
4213 | 5 AL |
LS \ SF -2E |
4443 6 64 |
4768 we 15 4,\
4752 6 7%
4245 | 4 143
4766 | 5 92
4409 | Ti Bh |
4258 | 5 103 |
4729 | 5. 143 |
4360 | 5 5
4217 | She aa ||
4283, 6 4
4306 7 6%
4603 5. 84
By H. W. Elliott and
A. F. Gallagher for
House Committee on
Expenditures in the
Department of Com-
merce, July 29, 1913.
Meas- No. Salt weight
ure. of bundle.
Inches. Ibs. O02.
36 i 29 14 15
% \ 30 13 11
Aa
34
Oe 33 13 13
36 |} 34 12 8
So ek 15 12
% \ 36 12 14
2 \ 37 13. 10
Se Res 15 12
$24 | 39 i G
Be beac 14)
is 41 13) ih
ioe
34 \ 44 15 2
33 \ 45 16 6
:
pene
31
a Nas 13/7
jee
:
ab i 51 13 4
368 |} 59 12 8
38
in I 53 15 1
5 I 54 15000
3 \ 55 14 12
% \ 56 14 6
= \ 57 12 6
2 i 58 13 13
ge } 59 2 3
3) |} 60 13 13
eh GL | 2.013 14
By W. I. Lembkey for
. S. Bureau of Fish-
eries, taken July 7,
1913.
Tagged No. Green
of skin. weight
Lbs. Oz
4753 Ul
_ 4276 7 83
4353 5 144
4706 6 103
4235 5 8
1 4478 0 Oo
4459 8 13
4687 6 13%
4350 6 12%
4322 7 9
4364 6 7
4650 6 10
4215 4 122
4225 4 4
4636 6 5
4266 5 «64
4771 6 124
4745 7 32
4763 6 34
4627 Geos
4792 i, od
4399 6 15
4621 6 8
4214 ies
1 4482 Oe0
4798 5 113
4390 7 7%
4230 5 88
4710 6 114
A741 6 14
4630 7 44
4279 Hi 8}
4711 8 6
4680 6 4%
4644 7 123
4436 8 8
4692 Gho
4656 |. 6 14%
4455 7 Of
4321 6 4
4765 6 &
4690 5 134
4699 Gad
4602 (aj) al
4786 6 104
4465 6 63
4609 6 134
4354 ih 7
4274 8 0
4385. 6 134
4773 TD
4404 6 142
4221 5 54
4262 6 83
4708 6 134
4702 7 114
4764 6 64
4601 6 12
- 4439 a6
4366 5 9
_ 4227 4 143
4704 5 104
4310 8: 9
4789 5 153
4301 ae On al
4716 6 ‘34
1 No green’ weight, Northeast Point skins -
By H. W. Elliott and
A. F. Gallagher for
House Committee on
Expenditures in the
Department of Com-
merce, July 29, 1913.
Sey |S |e
ae Lbs. Oz.
oe \ 62 15 9
3 |} 68) | 14 8
A \ 64 13 12
ae \ 65 16 8
fe \ 66 13
ay \ 67 4 13
a2 \ 68 12 6
2 \ 69 13 10
au { 70 16 0
30 \ 71 15 1
* \ 72 16 0
ge \ 73 15 12
36 \ 74 16 0
ai \ 75 15
a4 \ 76 1519
a a 14 3
35 \ 78 15 13
oR 70 16 6
a 80 14 9
3B \ 81 14 5
30h \ 82 13 14
a6 \ 83 14 3
ah \ 84 14 12
aoe \ 85 14 8
308 \ 86 16 2
3
i. \ 87 15 8
Be \ 88 120
es \ 89 15, 4
a \ 90 13. 15
a8 \ 91 13 12
Fe \ 92 itl 18
ar \ 93 16 2
od \ | 13 13
126 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Table showing the record and system of recording salted fur-seal skin measurements and
weights which was adopted by Special Agents Elliott and Gallagher in the Government
salt house July 29, 1913, when making this record of those green weights and salt weights
and measurements of 400 fur-seal skins taken by order of Bureau of Fisheries on the island
of St. Paul, July 7, 19183—Continued.
By W. I. Lembkey for
U.S. Bureau of Fish-
eries, taken July 7,
1913.
Tagged No.
of skin.
oe
a —
22 eS
IOS
woo
DONO MOAAANIANARRBARAOABHANINOVUA BUDS
100 D2 00 ID D2 “ID “IH COLI DW MARUI AAIAAWAUIBDNIAIAMIBNIDAIAIA WMS
e
aad
74
en
Bee ONOO ROO We ee me nce
ePeRe Pace
et
Ore Oo
ne wakes
ETRE RA CSI ope
~~
iF
By H. W. Elliott and
A. F. Gallagher for
House Committee on
Expenditures in the
Department of Com-
merce, July 29, 1913.
Meas- No. Salt weight
ure. of bundle .
ee Lbs. 02.
a5 ea 14 12
a i 96 12 14||
363 97 “41
25 98 IG
a \ 99 15 13
36 | 100 15 4
3° | 101 13 12
a \ 102 42
at th 103 15 4
36 |} 104 2 4
33 IN 105 Tao
ot } 106 16 14
314 \ 107 13)
36 |\ 108 15 6
33 | 109 raed
7 \ 110 13 7
pd Vin 15 14
a \ 12 iacinet
ora \ us 15 10
a | a4 15 8
a7 \ 115 16 2
37 | 116 15 13 |
a \ 117 15 6 |
Ey \ 13 15 4
4 \ 19 14 8
. } 120 15 3
31 \\ 21 15 0
Ve a
37
E \ 124 15 4
4 |h,125 1b 4|
3° |}..126 16 12
at } 127 14 12
By W. I. Lembkey for
. 8. Bureau of Fish-
eries, taken July 7,
1913.
Tagged No. Green
of skin. weight
Lbs. Oz
4724 7 33
4624 6 72
| 4302 bs Be
| 4261 6 4
| 4341 8 64
| 4652 6 53
| 4608 ee Shik
| 4413 7 142
4420 6 114
4626 6 144
4707 7 6%
4386 6 24
4775 8 #
4289 6 13
4268 7 104
| 4330 5 144
4441 7 4t
| 4606 6 74
4328 6 93
4325 Gi ae
4614 5 8h
4286 Th te
4367 6 54
| 4643 7 3
4346 7 63
4303 5) 66
4345 6 0
4784 6 5%
4405 6 124
1447 0 Oo
4312 6 %
4628 5 113
4659 6 44
| 4307 5 143
| 4309 7 133
| 4746 5 154
43.44 6 134
427 6 9k
4389 a |
| 4749 7 5h
' 4277 5 143
| 4349 5 9
4714 6 112
4666 6 7
4259 6 6
4464 6. 143
4311 7 9}
| 4435 7. 15
| 4269 5 143
14467 0 0
| 4314 6 144
4795 6 7%
4362 6, 12%
4682 6 133
4739 5 14
4298 Sr oe
4732 7 3
4607 6. Me
} 4736 6 12
4296 6 63
| 4791 6 13h
4453 a) a
| 4605 6. 128
| 4684 6 Of
fl 4372 7 &
I 4264 5. 14
By H. W. Elliott and
A. F. Gallagher for
House Committee on
Expenditures in the
Department of Com-
merce, July 29, 1913.
Meas- | yp. | Salt weight
ure. * | of bundle.
Inches Lbs. Oz.
a 128 14 8
38 \ 129 14 12
36
303 \ 130 15 13
34
6 \ 331 14 An
‘ \ 132 14 8
ar |} 133 4 4
38 lh 134 16 0
337 |} 135 15 0
35
a \ 136 “4 13
a \ 137 14 8
32}
0) \ 138 3 1
o 139 Aan
140 14
35
34
i \ 141 13 11
i \ 142 13 5
o \ as ie
a \ 144 13° 46
Bo \ 145 Ve 14
364
is \ 146 14 10
2, \ 147 16 4
ih \ 148 4 0
i]
i ae 14 13
150 16.
35
aah \ 151 17 12
37
a \ 152 12 12
3 \ 153 14 15
an \ 154 4 6
A \ 155 12 10
Ba \ 156 15 19
E \ a7 15 4
a \ 158 15 10
32
a \. 159 14 10
33h } 160 ee
‘a hy
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 127
Table showing the record and system of recording salted fur-seal skin measurements and
weights which was adopted by Special Agents Elliott and Gallagher in the Government
salt house July 29, 1913, when making this record of those green weights and salt weights
aad measurements of 400 fur-seal skins taken by order of Bureau of Fisheries on the island
of St. Paul, July 7, 1913—Continued.
| By H. W. Elliott and By H. W. Elliott and
By W.I. Lembkey for A. F. Gallagher for |} By W.I. Lembkey for A. F. Gallagher for
y fo g : :
v. S. Bureau of Fish- House Committee on ‘U.S. Bureau of Fish- House Committee on
eal taken July 7, | Hxpenditures anesthe | ence, taken July 7, Expenditures Any ue
1913, epartment 0 :om- 2 epartment 0 om-
merce, July 29, 1913. merce, July 29, 1913.
Tagged No. Green | Meas- No Salt weight || Tagged No. Green Meas- No Salt weight
of skin. weight. ure. * | of bundle. |} of skin. weight. ure. * | of bundle.
Lbs. Oz. | Inches. Lbs. Oz. || rae its. ae tees: Lbs. 02.
4319 6 153 35 | 7
aoe eee aay \ 161 14 8 ee ae se) \ 181 15 10
4370 7 bh 43 4618 0 42 |)
Be tte) ee a er Bc,
i «
2 Gn Cra eam eee
4463 5 123] ~ 32 \ 164 14 14} 4639 7 34| 38 \ 184 18 9
4649 fer Lor 4701 7 64 41
4327 6 133) 38 \ 165 15 8 14480 | 10 0 22 \ 185 14 0
4772 8 10 36 : 4299 7 23 9
nie 6 5 | 3s \ 166 14 10 faa 6 | 34 \ 186 15 14
az | 4 is | a1 [tv] 2 a73| 7 ae; ae ST| 8
4770 ise) 38 4754 6 6 41
ee | eer i eee | a
I SS eae MS BS aay
oO
fein fogs |, oe \ 170 15 0 8402 : a 2 \ 190 taal
47. ibs 39 4637 6 :
4452 6 9 | 35 \in ES 4332 5 3y| 32 |} 191 Up es
as| fie | ae hi] 4 9] fel 4 a5 | ag |fi@| 16 2
4400 9 2| 39 4722 7 10 35
4612 8 43| 32 \ 173 18 8 4620 Be 10h |e sie \ 193 15 8
oo) PR) hm] of Bal TH) foes
MII ge as || 35 S 4340 no 38
aii5 | 2 353 \ 175 14 10 21 6 13 345 \ 195 16 9
aas| 6 74 | a4 (} 176 eras 14472 | 0 oe } 196 tio
4740 fie 7 41 4416 7 10: 36
4696 | 7 15 | 37 |} 177 a 4671 5 14h| 313 |} 197 seu
aos| 7 3| gai}; 18 4 4053 | i a1 |} 198] 16 10
4421 7 123 37 4460 ia 35
He Se 38 \ 179 Sens 4384 3 134 334 199 1A
4790 6 94 9 44: 5! :
4254 G 9i| 34 \ 180 M5 4631 5 103 | 36 } 200 14 10
! No green weight; Northeast Point skin.
Nore.—The following annotation was made by Walter I. Lemb-
key on his official record of the weights of the 400 sealskins listed
and measured and weighed above, all taken in the killing of July 7,
4913:
All seals killed to-day dripping wet, and skins loaded with water. Steady rain, with
fog. Southeast wind. To determine percentage of moisture in skins to-day, 12
skins were weighed wet, the moisture then taken from them until the skins were
nearly dry, and the same skins weighed again. The aggregate wet weight was 90
pounds 1.5 ounces. The aggregate dry weight was 79 pounds 14.5 ounces; the aggre-
gate loss, 10 pounds 3 ounces, or 11 percent. All weightsto-day, therefore, should be
considered as averaging 11 per cent above normal weight.
This statement of Mr. Lembkey orders a decrease of 10 per cent
in the green weights, which makes the increased weight of the salt-
cured skins 10 per cent greater than the figures show. For instance,
bundle No. 1 weighs 13 pounds 14 ounces; 10 per cent off from the
128 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
green weights makes them 1 pound 3 ounces lighter than they show in
-Lembkey’s table, or the bundle weighs 2 pounds more, rather than less.
Analysis of the figures of weight and measurement (taken July 7,
1913, green, by W. 1. Lembkey) made of a series of 400 fur seal skins,
which show the loading of small skins so as to make them weigh into
larger size skin weights, and so deceive:
80-84 inch yearling skins, which should weigh, if properly skinned, 4 pounds 8 ounces.
Weighed
No. Tag No. Length. green No.
July 7, 1913.
Inches. Lbs. Oz.
1 4623 32 5 113 68
2 4318 34 7 114 69
3 427. 34 5 154 70
4 4353 34 5 14% 71
5 4661 34 7 14 72
6 4246 31 5 153 73
7 4242 31 4 51 74
8 4238 33 4 8 75
9 4297 34 6 73 76
10 4239 34 See 77
11 4251 33 5 123 78
12 4380 334 5 11h 79
13 4247 26 Be il 80
14 4237 33 4 111 81
15 4234 34 | LE 82
16 4371 34 7 5k] 83
17 4244 32 4 31) 84
18 4212 323 5 133 85
19 4233 323 Zi TESC| 86
20 4232 323 4 8 | 87
21 4358 34 GL ae 88
22 4382 34 6 43 89
23 4241 33 4 8h 90
24 4660 33 512 91
25 4751 30m Gr || 92
26 4427 33 | 6 91) 93
27 4715 33 | 6 0 94
28 4761 34 fs ee Hg || 95
29 4700 31 5 44 || 96
30 4228 | 34 4 41] 97
31 4226 | 34 5 8} 98
32 4673 | 33 6 83 || 99
33 4209 33 | 6 (2 100
34 4240 31 4 53 101
35 4356 33 ES )| 102
36 4382 34 6 43 || 103
37 4241 | 33 | 4 8} || 104
38 4660 | 33) 5 12} || 105
39 4751 | 32 | Breda 106
40 4427 | 33 6 9} || 107
41 4715 33 6 0 || 108
42 4761 34 Sell 109
43 4700 31 5 Af 110
44 4228 34 4 4} 111
45 4226 34 5 8h 112
46 4673 33 6 83 113
47 4209 33 | 6 2h 114
48 4240 31 | 4 51 |! 115
49 4356 33 6 73 || 116
50 | 4224 34 6 112 || 117
51 | 4249 33 5 4] 118
52 4213 33 5 14 |} 119
53 | 4275 32 8 7H iI 120
54 4245 33 4 143 | 121
55 4258 34 5 103 122
56 4283 34 6 4] 123
7 4350 33 6 12% || 124
58 4650 34 6 10 || 125
59 4215 32 4 123 126
60 4225 32 4 ik 127 |
61 4636 | 34 6 5k 128
62 4266 32 5 64 129
63 4627 324 Finbe 130 |
64 427 34 Boon 131
65 4656 34 6 14} || 132 |
66 4690 324 5 134 133
67 4708 |- 34 6 13k 134
Tag No.
4227
4704
4789
4301
4716
4430
4617
4779
4719
4665
4638
4383
4339
4379
4220
4397
4733
4252
4658
4211
4326
4652
4608
4626
4707
4386
4289
4330
4325
4614
4346
4345
4784
4628
4746
4666
4259
4795
4298
4791
4605
4684
4264
4717
4403
4463
4381
4343
4762
4770
4610
4612
4648
4329
4734
4254
4618
4783
4373
4634
4368
4402
4232
4620
4727
4671
4384
Length.
Weighed
green
July 7, 1913.
Ibs. Oz.
OT OUD Gd GUT DD Gd STS? OO G2 ST > 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. <p> 2. ce oire e doen <i eg Pao sae daeleme © a Oe i6
Silex; small-pups; cuts< se <2 ek 23h ee Se oe ee ee eee 4 15
Gemall; mibbeds.¢-5 He aicia-aacupreet duplweecne bb -Roee See cee eee eo
bo, large, pups, Jubbeds us and. {ee -Pdackaacc 4 -bataho saree te eee eee 6 14
4195 - middling. pups, rubbed. 1a-pr<\\staaclar Sone ots Peles sina ie See 6 56
290small pups rubbed ssce(o3- aaaiee aheleg Sacctesee rR otC eee ee eee 5 ll
(9, ex. small pups, rubbed. «x=: se aon. d+ eke Besewas sacle ye dee eee Dyas
36 faulty.
12,732 average based on December, 1909, prices 144/.
5 small.
21 large pups.
48 middling pups.
94 small pups.
18 ex. small pups.
2 faulty.
188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/.
12, 920
Subject to recount.
Mr. Extiorr. Right at this point
Mr. TowNsEND (interposing). Do you refer to 1910 or 1909? Is that 1909?
Mr. Bowers. No; this is 1910. (Hearing No. 3, p. 128.)
In order to justify that killing of more than 7,733 yearlings in
1910, as admitted by W. I. Lembkey, under oath, April 13, 1912,
Dr. Jordan’s man, Geo. W. Clark, prepared and published February
28, 1913, an elaborate and studied statement in which he declares
that these weights (those ‘loaded’ blubbered skins which he and
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 13]
his scientific associates have been familiar with since 1896), properly
deny the charge that yearlings were so killed.
This exhibition of those “loaded”’ skins—those blubbered 30-34
inch skins (7,733 of them), taken in 1910, Clark unwittingly makes
in Science, issue of February 28, 1913, pages 325-327. He goes far-
ther: With the cooperation of Dr. D. S. Jordan he has a reprint of
these pages from Science made, and sends a copy to every Senator
and Member of Congress, in which he uses these bogus ‘‘loaded”’
skin weights to deny the killing of those small seals, which have as
above been admitted so killed by ‘is own associate and confederate,
W. I. Lembkey.
He says:
On the other hand, the testimony clearly shows that of the 13,500 skins taken in
1910 (of which 12,920 were sold in London in December of that year), the season
under particular consideration, only 90 were under the standard weight of the
2-year-old, as shown by the green weights taken by the agents on the islands, and
only 92 by the salted weights of the London fur dealers.
Turn from this statement, as quoted from Clark, to that exhibit
of 400 skins which were taken July 7, last, just as these skins of 1910
were taken, and by the same men, under the same director, W. I.
Lembkey.
According to the green weights which those 400 blubbered skins
show, there are only 18 skins under Clark’s “standard weight of the
2-year-old”’—only 18 yearlings. _ :
Yet the fact is that there are in this small list of 400 sealskins,
taken in the very best season of the year, and when the largest seals
are most plentiful at any one time of the year, there are actually
139 yearling skins, every one of them less than 344 inches long. Yet
every one of these little skins has been so “loaded” with blubber
that they weigh into the classes of 2 and 3 year old skins.
Why does Dr. Jordan (and Mr. Clark also) ignore the measure-
ments of those skins? Those measurements of that 12,920 skins
show beyond a shadow of dispute that 7,733 of them were each less
than 34 inches long—show that they were yearling seals’ skins. _
No one of the scientists of the advisory board on fur seal service,
of which Dr. Jordan is the president, has dared to publicly deny the
admission made by their own confederate, W. I. Lembkey, that the
skin of a yearling seal is 36} inches long, just as has been said by
Mr. Elliott, who has testified as follows:
Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own summary and official record of the measure-
ments 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——
Mr. Mappen. Let me ask you a question. According to Mr. Lembkey’s testimony
read by you, he testified that the length of a yearling would be 394 inches, and when it
was skinned the skin itself would be 364 inches. Does it always follow that a yearling
seal measures just the same or within an inch or two of the same length?
Mr. Exsiorr. 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? i
Mr. Exxrorr. No; but there is the general average, and you can very easily keep
within the limit.
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. Extiorr. Yes, sir.
132 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Mappen. And it might be 394 inches?
Mr. Exuiotr. 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 risk of killing
females, when he does, is incurred by him. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 905-906, July 30,
1912, House Committee on Expenditures Department of Commerce and Labor.)
The following weights of the large 39-43 inch skins, taken July 7,
1913, show that they have been “clean skinned,” not “blubbered,”’
and show the fair size per salt weight of skin. They are 3-year-old
skins, yet in Lembkey’s list a large number of these small 30-34 inch
skins weigh just as much as these 39—43-inch skins do, as shown in the
foregoing abstract and below, to wit:
| Weighed Weighed
No. Tag No. Length. | green No. Tag No. Length. green
| July 7, 1913. July 7, 1913.
Inches. Lbs. O02. Inches. Lbs. 02.
1 4757 | Al Lene. 21 4625 49 6 64
2 4788 | 40 | 7 10 22 4338 40 7 144
3 A712 | 40 6 6 23 | 4226 393 7 &
4 4723 39 | TARE 24 4312 Gen
5 4705 422 Hoe BE 25 4309 41 7 133
6 4709 | 40 | 8 54 26 4277 394 5 14%
7 4768 39 7 5s 27 4362 41 6 124
8 4766 39 5 9h 28 4781 45 6 8
9 4706 39 6 103 29 4417 393 8 2B
10 4364 39 ie ae 30 4429 40 7 gk
il 4711 44 8 31 4780 39 7 #4
12 4786 40 6 104 32 A400 39 9 2%
13 4274 393 8 0 33 4293 40 6 154
14 4651 39 } he 6 34 4291 40 ya
15 4782 40 7 33 35 | 4701 Al 7 64
16 4308 40 | 6 134 36 4222 39 7 23
17 4800 40 6 113 37 4664 39 Mee NG
18 4667 40 | 6 53 38 4754 41 6 6
19 4281 42 8 3 39 4645 40 (ae)
20 4361 40 7 64
Here are 39 skins, which are each between 39-43 inches long, and
are clearly the skins of 3-year-olds. They were skinned at the same
time on the same field that the yearling 30-34 inch skins were. Yet
53 of those small yearling 30-34 inch skins are so loaded with blubber
that they each one weigh as much as any one of those big 39-43 inch
skins do.
The 2-year-old 364—38-inch skins in this list of 400 skins, as above
cited, are not so heavily loaded, but nearly all of them are so put up
into the 3-year-old weights, viz, 7 pounds and up to 84 pounds.
There are 127 of these loaded 2-yvear-olds in this exhibit of 400.
These green weights of those skins should run from 53 pounds to 6
pounds each, if properly skinned; never any less.
This showing of those 400 July 7, 1913, green skins declares the
fact—
I. That the small 30-34-inch skins have nearly all of them been
loaded with blubber so as to weigh into the 2 and 3 year old class of
skin weights, i. e., into the same weights that belong to properly
skinned 364-38 and 39-44 inch skins.
II. That weight list of Lembkey thus falsely certifies 139 yearling
skins by this record of killing of July 7, 1913, ‘‘as the skins of seals -
not under 2 years of age.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 138
Ill. That weight list ot Lembkey is the certified proof of this
illegal kalling, and it shows exactly how this work of loading the green
skins with blubber so as to deceive as to (weight of) size of skin ever
since 1896—how it has been done on the islands by the lessees with
the aid of the agents of the Government, year after year, since then,
up to date. :
Mr. Youne. In this hearing, volume 3, page 131, there seems to be a statement or
a report sent out by the London agent, dated the 19th of November, 1910, as to the
salted fur-seal skins for the account of the United States Government. That state-
ment seems to be arranged altocether on the basis of weights.
Mr. Ettrorr. But that is simply in response to an inquiry from the bureau. They
do not classify them according to the bureau’s direction. They classify these skins by
measurement. The bureau asked for the weights, and they sent them the weights;
but they do not classify them by weights. They would be laughed out of court
and would lose their standing if they undertook to classify them by weight. You
never know what skinners and salters will do with the weights, but they can not
trifle with the measurements. They can not change the measurements; but the
can “‘load” them with weight of blubber and salt anywhere from 14 to 3 pounds.
have seen it done. Did I not see this man, in 1890, grin and smile about how he was
fixing his skins to increase their weight; but the laugh was on him when the Lamp-
son’s returns came in. (Hearing No. 4, p. 223, July 11, 1911. House Committee on
Expenditures, Department of Commerce and Labor.)
Lembkey swears that the skin of a yearling fur seal is 364 inches
long, to wit.
Mr. Extiotr. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its
nose to the tip of its tail?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir, not off-hand.
Mr. Exxiotr. You never measured one?
Mr. Lempxey. Oh, yes, I have measured one.
Mr. Exttiorr. Have you no record of it?
Mr. Lempxey. I have a record of it here.
Mr. Extiotr. 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, 394 inches in one instance and 394 in another
instance.
Mr. Extotr. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three.
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. All right.
Mr. Extiotr. When you take a skin off of that yearling seal, how much of that
skin do you leave on there?
Mr. Lempxey. You do not leave very much on the tail end there [indicating];
not nearly so much as your sketch would show.
Mr. Exxiorr. It does not matter.
Mr. Lempxey. We leave about 3 inches, perhaps, on the head.
Mr. Exuiotr. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken
the skin off?
The CuarrmMan. How much skin is left after you have taken it off?
5 a Euiorr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain amount
is leit on.
Mr. Lempxey. I stated about 3 inches.
Mr. Exuiotr. 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. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 442, 443, Apr.
13,1912. House Committee on Expenditures, Department of Commerce and Labor.)
Out of the foregoing exhibit of 400 skins taken by Mr. Lembkey,
July 7, 1913, 261 of them are not over 364 inches in length, or are
yearling skins of his identification and measurement-
134 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
LEMBKEY TELLS THE TRUTH IN 1904,
AND RECORDS THE FACT THAT SALTING
SEAI, SKINS INCREASES THEIR WEIGHT.
Chief Special Agent Lembkey makes
the following entry on page 149 of the
Journal of the Government Agent on
St. Pauls Island, Alaska, to wit—
“SATURDAY, July 28, 1904.
“One hundred and seven 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
weighted 705 pounds, and on being
taken out they weighed 7594 pounds, a
gain in salting of 543 pounds, or one-half
pound per skin.”’
A true copy, made July 22, 1913.
Attest: Henry H. Exxiort,
A. F. GALLAGHER,
Agents House Committee on Ex-
penditures in the Department of
Commerce.
But LEMBKEY FALLS FROM TRUTH
ABOVE—FALLS HARD.
[Hearing No. 9, p. 446, Apr. 13, 1912, House Com-
mittee on Expenditure in the Department of
Commerce and Labor.]
Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Lembkey, you say
you never have weighed these skins
after you have salted them? You have
never weighed them?
Mr. Lemspxey. I have never weighed
them after the salting on the islands;
no, sir.
aiter
and
LEMBKEY TELLS AN UNTRUTH IN 1912,
AND SO DOES UNDER OATH, TO SHIELD
AND DENY HIS ILLEGAL KILLING OF YEAR-
LING SEALS.
[Hearing No. 9, pp. 445-446, Apr. 13, 1912, House
Committee on Expenditure in the Department
of Commerce and Labor.] :
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir. I speak of the
weights on the islands, and have brought
in the London weights to show there is
not really very much variation.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I am
speaking about. The weights you speak
about after salting are the London weights?
Mr.LemBKey. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I was try-
ing to get at. Now, then, Mr. Elliott,
what weights do you speak about?
Mr. Extiorr. I speak of the London
“salt weights” increasing the ‘‘ereen
weights” on the islands one-half pound
and more, as the skins vary In size.
Mr. McGurre. You speak of the green
weights in London after they have been
salted?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And Mr. Lembkey
| spoke of the weights in London after they
have been salted.
Mr. Exniorr. We are both speaking of
the same thing.
Mr. McGurre. You say there is a
slight decrease?—no—You say, Mr. El-
liott, there is an increase from a fraction
of a pound to a pound, even in London?
Mr. Exurorr. Even in London. I
wish to quote as my authority the man
| who does the classifications in London,
Sir George Baden-Powell, and Dr. George
M. Dawson, the British commissioner,
addressed a letter to Sir Curtis Lampson.
The CHarrmMan. What do they say?
Mr. Exurorr. They say:
‘“We are unable to answer your inquiry
as to what class the sales catalorue would
place a skin classified on the island as,
say, a 7-pound skin, as we do not know
| whether the classification you mention
with reference to the skins is taken
or after they have been cured
salted ready for shipping. The
process of curing and salting must of
necessity add to the weight.
Mr. Lempxey. ‘“‘Must of necessity.”
| I submit that was merely his inference
that they must of necessity be increased
in weight.
The CHarrMAn. Is that not true?
Mr. Lempxey. No, I stated it was not.
The CHarrmMan. You differ on that?
Mr. Lempxey. All our experiments
show that the salting of skins slightly
decrease the weight. Those gentlemen’s
_ inference—and I think the inference of a
| great many people who have never made
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 135
an experiment on that point—would be
that the salt does increase it.
The CHarrman. Are these gentlemen
qualified in your opinion to pass judg-
ment on that question?
Mr. Exzrotr. The Lampsons?
Mr. Lempxey. I should like to have
had Sir Curtis Lampson, or whoever this
man is, make some practical experiments
with regard to variations in weight, and.
not simply give his opinion.
The CHarrMAN. There seems to be a
difference there in opinion on a very
important matter.
Dr. EvVERMANN. May I say just a word?
The CHarrMan. Yes.
Dr. EverMANN. This statement that
Mr. Elliott has read gives the opinion of
that gentlemen as to the effect of salt.
He does not claim to have weighed any
skins green, and then subsequently
.weighed those skins after having been
salted to determine the effect.
Deceit practiced by Bureau of Fisheries to conceal the legal killing of
small seals on Pribilof Islands.
Tae DECEIT AND TRICK.
The salt is all removed from skins be-
fore weighing, so as to show that the
“‘salt weights” are less than the “green”
weights.
Dr. EVERMANN. Last year, when Mr.
M. C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service,
went to the Pribilof Islands, he was in-
structed to make certain investigations,
one of which was to determine by actual
experiment the effect that salting has
upon the weight of fur-seal skins. He
made a very careful investigation of the
matter, and his report has just been re-
ceived. It is so interesting and valuable
that I wish to put it in the record. His
investigation settles the question conclu-
sively and for all time. It shows that
salting causes fur-seal skins to lose
weight. The report is as follows:
The average loss of weight for the whole
69 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 mechan-
ically remove all the salt from the skins
before reweighing. They were shaken,
swept, and brushed, but a few grains and
crystals of salt were always left adhering
to each side of the skin. Obviously it
would not do to wash them off. By
more careiully cleaning a few of the re-
weighed skins and then again weighing
them, I estimate this residual salt to
average an ounce or something more.
Tue Deceit EXPosen.
The salt and skins are weighed together
in the London classification—that in-
creases the ‘‘green skin” weights.
Mr. Exziorr. Now, in Senate Execu-
tive Document No. 177, Fifty-third Con-
gress, second session, pages 117 and 118
[Senate Executive Document, 177, pt. 7],
counter case of the United States, on
page 118 the United States commission-
ers, Merriam and Mendenhall, have this
to say touching the salted weights:
‘““The British commissioners further
rely upon Mr. Elliott’s statement that
skins weigh from 54 pounds to 12 pounds
(sec. 672), and upon the comparison of
such statement with that of Lieut. May-
nard, an independent observer, who gives
the average weight of bundles as 22
pounds and the weight of the largest as 64
pounds (sec. 672). This appears to the
commissioners to require some explana-
tion (sec. 673). The implication is evi-
dent, and the United States offer the ex-
planation in vindication of the officers of
the Government who are thus charged.
A bundle contains not only the two skins
proper, but salt and blubber with which
they are packed for their preservation.
This naturally adds greatly to the weight,
as does also the moisture collected by the
salt and fur.’’
That sustains me completely about the
increased weight of ‘‘green’’ skins after
they are cured on the islands, and our Gov-
ernment carried that claim as a voucher
136 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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. {fany change takes place
during transportation to London, it is
likely to be a further loss. (Hearing No. |
14, pp. 974, 975, July 29, 1912.)
to Paris. It was never disputed by either
side at those sessions of the Bering Sea
ee held there from April to August,
1893.
Dr. Evermann. I would like the
chairman to ask Mr. Elliott to tell the
committee on what skins the statement
he just read was based.
Mr. Exuiotr. It is in the report of
Lieut. Maynard. It is there, and is cited
in the communication of the commission-
ers
The CuarrMAN. That is your answer——
Mr. Exvxiotrr. And the report of Lieut.
| Maynard is in my monograph, and I will
_ goright to the page if you want it (pp. 106—
107, Elliott’s Monograph Seal Islands,
| Tenth Census, United States of America,
| Washington, 1884). (Hearing No. 14,
|p. 995, July 29, 1912.)
In the foregoing statements we have made an exhibition of 400 _
skins which were taken (as they have been loaded by the lessees since
1890), July 7, 1913, on St. Paul Island; they are all now tagged,
numbered, and recorded as to salt and green weights and measure-
ments.
In the light of the exposé which they give it is interesting to regard
the following testimony, at the outset, to wit:
[Hearing No. 10, p. 566, Apr. 24, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce
and Labor.]
Dr. EveERMANN. On page 222 of these hearings Mr. Elliott says that, in arriving at
his estimates of the numbers cf yearling seals taken as set forth in the table submitted
by him, and printed on page 220, he was guided ‘‘solely by measurements. The
weights do not amount to anything,”’ hesays. The London people would be the biggest
fools in the world, he says, to go by weights. And he shows how foolish it would be
for the killers on the islands to leave an extra amount of blubber on the skin. He
‘says that when he pointed out to the people on the islands that the skins in London
were classified by measurement rather than by weight they quit blubbering them.
(P. 222.)
‘ Mr. Exuiorr. They didn’t quit blubbering them; they kept on.
Dr. Evermann. Then that statement is not true?
Mr. Extrorr. I said they might quit it; but they did not; they kept right on, and
they are still at it, very clearly.
Dr. EVERMANN. On page 223 Mr. Elliott states specifically that the skins are
classified in London entirely by measurements not by weights.
Mr. Extiorr. I do now.
[Hearing No. 9, p. 406, Feb. 29, 1912.]
Mr. Lempxey. There are five different weights given by Mr. Elliott, and I have
compared them in this statement.
Mr. Mappen. Let us clear it up right here, if we can, without any prejudice. I
would like to ask Mr. Elliott a question if I may be allowed to, Mr. Chairman, just
to clear up this. I understood Mr. Lembkey to testify that Mr. Elliott claimed that
a seal of a certain age, a sealskin of a certain weight, would indicate the seal’s age.
For example, in his official reports, he said a certain aged seal would have a skin
weighing 44 pounds, and that a certain other aged seal would have a skin weighing
_ 54 pounds, and that later on Mr. Elliott had stated that these skins varied from 6 to 7
pounds. Now, I understood Mr. Elliott to say, and I want to get it correct in the
record so as to do justice to Mr. Elliott, as well as to Mr. Lembkey, that when he makes
the statement of 6 to 7 pounds that he means the salted skins.
Mr. Exurotr. Yes, with more or less blubber and salt per skin.
Mr. Mappen. And in the case where he makes the flat statement of 44 to 5 pounds,
it is a green skin.
Mr. Exurorr. A ‘‘green skin,”’ and that creates all these differences.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 137
Mr. Mappen. I wanted to straighten that up so there would not be any misunder-
standing aboutit. I think it is only fair to all sides.
*- Mr. Exriorr. My official tables are all ‘‘green” weights. Interpreting the London
tables, I take salt weights and keep the London measurements corresponding with
the official record of measurements made on the islands.
Mr. Mappen. Your idea is the salt weight of the skins would vary 14 pounds?
Mr. Extrotr. One and one-half pounds according to blubber and salt.
_Mr. Mapvpen. Only green skins.
Mr. Exttorr. Yes, sir; and the London agent says so.
Mr. Mappen. So, as a matter of fact, if in the one case it was stated by Mr. Elliott
a skin would be 44 pounds, and another case 54 pounds, and later on 6 and 7 pounds,
that it was understood that one was green and another salt, then his statements in both
cases would be correct?
Mr. Exziorr. Yes; all the time bear in mind that the weights were unreliable, and
the measurements only, reliable, all through my testimony.
The CHarrman. Did Mr. Lembkey understand it in that way?
Mr. Lewsxey. I| certainly did not. ~ I stated I was very much confused in encoun-
tering the different weights for these different classes of skins.
Mr. MeGruticuppy. | think you wili find he takes up that matter of blubber and
salt.
Lembkey, finally cornered, admitted that the London classification
ignored his weight of skins, then attempts to deny his understanding.
{Hearing No. 9, p. 447,]
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, the biubber would.
Mr. Exurorr. Ail that can be done, can it not?
Mr. Lemsxey. I might state here, while you areon that point, that it would not alter
except in perhaps a very slight degree the classification of that skin when it was
received in Londen by the factors.
Mr. Evuiotr. 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 be only so long and so wide.
Mr. Extiotr. That is it.
Mr. Lempxey. And of course it would develop in the classification when the skins
would be exposed for sale.
The CHarRMAN. Do you mean by that that you rely when it gets to London on the
measurement rather than on the weight?
Mr. Lempxey. We do not have anything to do with this classification.
The Cuarrman. I know, but somebody does.
Mr. Lempxey. Mr. Elliott is making the point——
The CHarrman. You have just said that no matter how much blubber there was
on it it would not alter the Jengih and width.
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly not.
The CuHarrmMAn. Then do you rely upon the length and width of it rather than on
the weight to determine its age?
Mr. Lempxey. No. sir.
But he finally is compelled to admit that the measurement of the
salt-cured skin is a reliable indication of its age.
[Hearing No. 9, pp. 399, 400.]
Mr. McGuuicuppy. If you took a young skin and for the purpose of making it
appear by weight older, you could deceive?
Mr. Lempxey. We certainly could deceive. We could fili it with any sort, of sub-
stance.
Mr. McGitiicuppy. You say measurement would not be reliable because it might
be stretched. Suppose you did not stretch it, suppose you take it honestly, then
would it be, if honestly taken, would it be a test?
Mr. Lempxey. I tried to make that clear to the committee.
The CuatrmMan. That is a direct question. Why do you not answer it?
Mr. Lemexey. I am attempting to. It is impossible; of course all our actions up
there are honestly——
Mr. Mappewn (interposing). Answer the question right straight. Do not try to
explain it. ;
1388 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Lempxey. I have attempted to state that in measuring a green skin it is impossi-
ble to find out its exact length when you lay it on the ground, because it may curl up,
or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened by salt.
Mr. McGruuicuppy. Then it will not stretch?
Mr. Lempxey. Certainly not.
Mr. McGrtuicuppy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid
and stiff? !
Mr. LemBxey. Certainly. ;
Mr. McGitiicuppy. You can not then stretch or shrink it?
Mr. LemBxey. No, sir. ;
Mr. McGitticuppy. With an honest measurement of that kind of skin would it not
determine the age?
Mr. Lempxey. I fancy, yes.
Mr. McGiuicuppy. Is there any doubt about it?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not think so. I say, fancy, because I never attempted to
judge of age by the measurements. e
Mr. McGituicuppy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive,
because you say they could not stretch it?
Mr. Lempxey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days,
because the skin then is not very pliable.
Mr. McGrtticuppy. Then it is your idea that measurement is reliable after a
certain number of days?
Mr. Lempxery. Yes, after it has been in salt, but when the skin is green it would not
be a reliable test.
EXHIBIT G.
Copies of official entries in the journal of the United States Treasury
agent’s office, St. George Island, showing the impossibility and
the futility of getting an accurate “‘count” of all the live pups on
a fur-seal rookery.
Extracts in recounting live pup seals taken from the official journal
of the agents of the Government in charge of St. George Island,
Bering Sea, Alaska. These records show the impossibility of getting
an accurate count of all the live fur-seal pups on any breeding rookery.
These entries under the respective dates, as follows, state facts,
to wit:
OrFricE UNITED States TREASURY AGENT IN CHARGE,
St. George Island, Alaska.
August 1, 1901.—With George and Joe Merculief went to Little
East to count last pups and to determine thereby how much resistance
may be expected from bulls at this early stage.. The pups were
podded and driven east, being carefully counted as they narrowed
out. Others under rocks and in coves were pulled out by hand and
counted separately. The number counted was 631. As the total
number is 434 less than we counted last year, a recount of the rookery
will be made to-morrow.
In the afternoon, with George Merculief, Mike Lestenkof, and Rev.
Kashavarof, counted the pups on north rookery. The same methods
were used, except that from the roughness of the rookery space much
more trouble was experienced. Here, however, the bulls were holding
their positions without giving ground, and greatly hampering our
count. We succeeded in passing from one end of north rookery to
the other, finding in that stretch 1,148 pups, but in the western end
of the rookery we were in some places unable to get farther than the
edge of the rookery, because of numbers of bulls holding from one to
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 139
five small cows each. In these places the count had to be made from
the most advantageous position. Our total of 3,741 pups for the
whole of north rookery is 2,004 less than the count of last year. We
clubbed at least 10 bulls, having several narrow escapes ourselves,
the clubbed bulls in every instance reviving and returning to the
attack. I do not accept the count as satisfactory, and will go over
the ground again in a day or two.
August 2, 1901.—Counted pups this morning on Little Hast and
East Reef. No trouble from bulls was experienced, and a very satis-
factory count was made. I took with me to-day M. Merculief, and
we counted together, he having counted with Maj. Clark last year.
We used the same methods of counting as he did. Our figures were
as follows: Little East, 847 pups; Hast Reef, 787 pap The differ-
ence between my figures to-day and yesterday for Little East is con-
siderable, but I believe the count to-day is more accurate. While I
felt satisfied with yesterday’s count, I believe that one person count-
ing can not cover the ground as well as two. We had no interference
on the East from bulls. We went then to east rockery proper and
began a count, but after working for an hour I found that the four
men with me were not enough to keep off the bulls and handle the
pups at the same time. We, therefore, returned to the village at
noon, and after dinner returned to east rookery with seven men.
With them the bulls were put off and kept off, and the pups handled
in much more satisfactory manner. The total number we found to
be East, 2,075 pups. Adding to this the number on Kast Reef, we
have East 2,075; East Reef, 787, against 3,047 for last year. Dead
pups. Little East, 6; East Reef, 3; Kast, 36.
August 5. 1901 —With Nikolai, George and Joseph Merculief, I
counted pups on Starre Arteel this morning. A total of 2,346 live
pups were found there. Our counts were very satisfactory. Nikolai
and I counted some pups In many instances, and on several occasions
our counts were exactly the same. In other cases our differences
were only two or three. Our greatest difference was 15 pups in a
pod of over 200, and in that instance I split the difference.
In the afternoon I counted with the same men the pups on north
rookery. I detailed George to count dead pups, and the other two
men counted live ones. As before, the bulls in many instances were
tenacious and charged us instead of going the other way. One small
cow having a new born pup charged us several times, and then picked
up the pup in the a § and carried it farther away from us. Three
newly born pups were found, two with placental still adhering.
Quite a number of small cows appeared to be still not served, and
with these is always found a green, pugnacious bull. Our total was
4,503 live pups for north rookery and 125 dead pups. At the western
end of the rookery we were unable to cover a space of 50 yards
because of the presence of fighting bulls. For that space we counted
395 pups, all we could see from the edge of the rookery, and to that
added 100 for those below, which were hidden by a drop at the water’s
edge. I believe that there were at least 200 more pups there, but I
do not feel willing to make the estimate too high. With this excep-
tion of 100, the figures given as the total represent pups actually
counted.
August 7, 1901.—With Stepan Lekanof, A. Philamonof, and N.
Malavansky, George, Joseph, and Nick Merculief, I counted pups
on Zapadnie. We counted 4,113 live pups and 51 dead ones. Two
140 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
dead cows were found, one haying died very lately, her skin bitten
to pieces. Although the natives, who judge from the general aspect
of the rookery, say there are more cows there this year than last, the
count to-day is 1,229 less than the number given last year.
August 8, 1902, Sunday.—Counted pups, north rookery. Fol-
lowing are the results: Live pups, 4,852; dead pups, 43; dead cows, 3.
Note by Mr. Chichester: AWE were able to carry on the counting
from one end of the rookery to the other without molestation from
the bulls. The count on this rookery, while I feel. satisfied is as
accurate as could be made, is far from satisfactory. The greater
portion is so filled with large bowlders, beneath which the pups go,
where they can not be reached or even seen, and it is quite probable
a number were missed in the way.
August 5, 1902.—Counted pups on east rookery. Found on the
east reef 905 live pups and 10 dead. Count satisfactory and as near
compet as possible to get. Under cliffs we found 2,040 pups and 42
~ dead. ;
August 7, 1902, Thursday.—To Zapadnie for counting pups. Satis-
factory count, as follows: Live pups, 3,822; dead, 77; dead cows, 3.
August 3, 1908, Monday.—Mr. Chichester and self, with 4 men,
counted the pups on Zapadnie rookery, finding a total number of
3,462. The count was under rather than above and very unsatis-
factory.
Thursday, August 6,.1918—Mr. Chichester and myself, assisted
by George and Joseph Merculief, Nicolai Merculief, and Mike Shane
and Gregory Swetzoff, counted the pups on north rookery. The
aggregate proves to be 4,662. There were a few dead pups, but the
bodies of such were generally devoured or partly devoured by the
foxes. We therefore did not attempt to get the census of the dead.
Three cows were found dead. One had evidently caught her head
between rocks.
Wednesday, August 17, 1904.—Three boats returned with nice catch
of sculpin, cod, and small halibut.
July 20, 1906.—At a favorable point on north rookery a cow in
heat was teasing a bull, biting his neck and lifting up her hind parts,
which the bullsmelled. Shortly afterwards, he endeavored to copu-
late, but soon gave up the attempt, spread out on the rock, and went
to sleep. The cow renewed her blandishments from time to time,
but the bull had evidently reached his limit.
Sunday, July 29, 1906.—In afternoon Maj. Clark and I went with
a whole gang of natives and counted live pups on north and Starre
Arteel rookery. The count on north is far from satisfactory, but it is
as good as can be made. Wherever it was possible the pups were
hauled out from under the rocks, but in a number of instances It was
impossible to do this, so the count is more or less guesswork.' Result,
north rookery live pups, 3,749; dead pups, 105; dead cows, 3; Starre
Arteel, live pups, 1,958; dead, 48. _—-
Monday, July 22, 1907.—Visited north rookery and found the
cows very panicky and family discipline all gone.
! As an illustration of the curious inaccuracy of these seal estimates made by the agents here, and Hones
admitted as above (as well as on St. Paul), here is an entry made on Thursday, the 15th of July, 1909, whic
follows the work of the pelagic sealing fleet of the previous year, commencing August 1, and not ending
until the middle of October following; in spite of that slaughter and loss of life from the census and count
made by these men August 1, 1908, we find this entry: ‘‘Counted north rookery as follows, 109 harems
2,777 cows, 13 idle bulls; total bulls, 122. Comparing the foregoing with last year shows a falling off of 100
cows and a gain of 7 bulls. But there are some bulls hauled with the bachelors, of which at least 5 should
be counted as idle, making a gain of 10 bulls.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 141
ST. PAUL ISLAND JOURNAL.
July 11, 1909—* * * At4p.m. the Rush came to anchorage
on the west side, and without dropping their anchor immediately
dropped a boat over the side, mto which Mr. George A. Clark, of
Stanford University, was placed and taken ashore. * * * Mr.
Clark arrived under instructions from the department to investigate
conditions surrounding the seal life at the present time. He was
secretary to Dr. Jordan when the commission under that gentleman
made its investigation of these islands in 1896 and 1897.
August 2, 1909—* * * In the afternoon Messrs. Judge and
Clark and myself, with three native men, counted pups on Ketavie,
finding on Ketavie 1,669 live pups and 60 dead, a total of 1,729,
while on Amphitheater there were found 246 live and 4 dead pups,
a total of 1,979 for both places. * * * On the space involved,
namely Ketavie and Amphitheater, Mr. G. A. Clark counted on
July 13th last 53 harems, as noted in this record of the date men-
tioned. On the 15th I counted the harems there, finding 58. Upon
the basis of Mr. Clark’s count the average harem on the space counted
would be 37.3, while on the basis of my count the average harem
would be 34.1. I have adopted my count as the official figures.
In view of the fact that Mr. Clark was more or less hurried in counting,
due to the fact that he desired to catch the teams for Northeast
Point which were waiting for him while he was counting. My count,
however, was made two days later than the one made last year, and
robably shows several harems more than if made on the 13th as
eretofore.
ST. GEORGE JOURNAL.
Friday, July 16, 1909.—Mr. George A. Clark landed from the
Manning at about 10 a. m. He comes accredited to examine the
rookeries. He is the secretary of President Jordan of Stanford
University, California. In the afternoon went with Mr. Clark to
east rookery. It was impossible to prevent all of the bachelor
killables and many of the cows from being driven into the water.
Mr. Clark did not count the cows. It is not possible to do so in the
time given to individual harems.
Saturday, July 17, 1909.—Mr. Clark and Mr. Chichester went to
Zapadnie to examine rookery. Mr. Chichester and Mr. George A.
Clark counted bulls at Zapadnie, at Starre Arteel, and north rook-
eries. Mr. Clark and Mr. Chichester agreed in their counts.
Sunday, July 18, 1909.—The Manning sailed for St. Paul at
7.30 a.m.
Tuesday, August 3, 1909.—In the afternoon it cleared off, and I
went to north rookery with Mr. Chichester and 5 native men and
counted the pups with the following results: Living pups, 3,679;
dead pups, 105; dead cows, 2. While the count on this rookery is
aways difficult and unsatisfactory, I think it was about as good as
usual.
Friday, August 6, 1909.—Went in afternoon to little east rookery
and counted pups. The result shows 138 living and 1 dead pup.
One dead cow partly eaten by the foxes. In 1908, when I examined
142 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
this rookery, it showed 1,135 living pups. It has dwindled from
year to year, until only the pitiful number above given remains.
Friday, August 4, 1911.—Took force of natives and with help of
Dr. Mills counted the pups on north rookery. The count was very
unsatisfactory, several bulls holding the voung cows, causing the
massing of the pups, and many of them to go into the water at the
end of the rookery. The aggregate obtained was 4,146 pups, which
approximately is a correct one. The dead pups were 155.
ednesday, June 12, 1912.—The supply steamer Homer came in
at 6.30 a.m.and brought the following named passengers: * * *
Mr. George A. Clark and son from Stanford University, who are to
count the seals, Mr. J. C. Redpath, formerly company agent, for his
health. i
Monday, July 29, 1912.—Mr. Clark and his son went to Zapadnie
to count pups, starting at 8.30 o’clock. Mr. Clark returned from
Zapadnie in violent rainstorm, completely wetted through. He
counted pups at the Zapadnie rookery. .
Tuesday, July 30, 1912.—Mr. Clark and his son went in afternoon
to east rookery and made count of the pups. Mr. Clark reported
as follows: East Cliffs 2,307, including dead. Found on East Reef,
pu 536; on Middle East, one harem, 26 pups. The total pups on
apadnie and East is 4,115.
iedneadan July 31, 1912.—Mr. Clark and his son Paul went in
morning with two native boys to assist and counted north rookery,.
North rookery shows 4,227 pups. In the afternoon Mr. Clark and
his son Paul went to Starre Arteel and counted the dead and living
pups, with the result that there were found on this rookery 3,607
iving pups, a surprise to us all. This rookery was supposed to
have a much smaller number.
EXHIBIT H.
AN EXHIBITION OF THE REMOVAL AND SUBORNATION OF THE UNITED
STATES AGENTS, ON THE SEAL ISLANDS OF ALASKA, WHO WERE
DOING THEIR SWORN DUTY, BY THE LESSEES THEREOF: 1891—1909.
TAKEN FROM THE OFFICIAL RECORDS ON THE SEAL ISLANDS, AND
BRIEFED FROM THE SWORN TESTIMONY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 1911-1912.
Proof of the removal and subornation of the United States agents
on the Seal Islands by the lessees and their confederates. An
exhibition of the summary treatment given to Treasury agents
who did not serve the Seal Island lessees and do their bidding
(said seal lessees being the North America Commercial Co., of San
Francisco and New York).
In 1890, July 20, the chief special agent in charge of the Seal -
Islands, Charles J. Goff, stopped the work of the lessees on July 20,
because they were killing female seals and injuriously driving the
young male seals in vain, to get their quota of 60,000. For doing
this, his sworn duty, in—
1891, April 5, Chief Special Agent Goff was removed, as follows,
and a ‘‘docile” man put in his place:
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 143
Mr. ELLiortr.—coNCERNING THE ‘‘OGDEN MILLS LETTER”? TO SECRETARY CHARLES
FOSTER, APRIL 2, 1891, AND ITS INCLOSURES.
[See pp. 311, 312, Hearing No. 7.]
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 Pribilof
Islands during the season just ahead—the summer of 1891 (‘if they can be found”’).
These agents of the Treasury on the seal islands, four of them—Chief Special Agent
Charles I. Goff and assistants, Joseph Murray, 8. 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 1s made in the premises,
started April 25, 1891, by issuing that killing order April 11 following and the full
sequence of the ‘‘Ogden Mills” letter, above cited, to wit:
The sole warrant which this letter gave to Secretary Foster for asking him to set
aside the verdict of those sworn officials above cited was ‘‘the inclosure of a series of
five affidavits” and a letter. ‘‘signed by Capt. Healey, U. S. R. M.,” all of whom de-
clared 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 Flliott 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, U.S. 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 an in all previous years.”’ (Think of such a statement from such a man, who knew
so little!)
Those “‘affidavits’” were simply bogus—they were false ab initio. They were
received by Mr. Foster on April 3, 1891, in this Mills letter aforesaid, and then what
happened?
On or about the 5th of April Mr. Charles I. 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. (Hearing No. 10, pp. 662, 663,
Apr. 24, 1912, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce
and Labor.) i
Following this removal of Mr. Goff, we have found by inspecting the
official journal of the United States special agent’s office, on St. Pauls
Island, that on May 21, 1891, United States Special Agent A. W.
Lavender, having sent word to the Treasury Department that the
lessees were not living up to the terms of their contract, and being
144 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
guilty also of having joined in with Special Agent Goff August 1, 1890,
in the same recommendation that the work of the lessees be sus-
pended for the public good, gets summarily removed upon a
trumped-up “charge,” false and silly, the entries showing this are
as follows, to wit:
On page 362 of the official record of the Treasury agent, St. Pauls
Island, the following entry is made by Assistant Special Agent S. W.
Nettleton, to wit: : :
Tuesday, June 23, 1891.—The following official communications and
telegrams were received by Treasury agent and Maj. H. Williams be-
fore sailing from and while in San Francisco:
Wasuineton, D. C., May 21, 1891.
Witiiam H. Wriutams, Special Agent,
Care of Collector of Customs, San Francisco, Cal.
On the seal islands there are 2,371 salted sealskins,! 1,255 of which are claimed to be
merchantable. Balance rejected skins. Deliver all to North American Commercial
Co., subject to future settlement. .
CHARLES Foster, Secretary.
Attest: True copy. A. F. GALLAGHER.
Wasuineton, D.C., May 21, 1891.
This is the “report” from Lavender, which caused his removal:
Unitep Srates TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
May 21, 1898.
Wituiam H. Wiis, Special Agent,
Care of Collector of Customs, San Francisco, Cal.
Report from Lavender just received per steamer Bear that natives on St. George
Island were insufficiently supplied during last winter with food and fuel and conse-
qently suffered hardship. Notify North American Commercial Co. that at least 70
tons of coal will be required for that island during coming winter.
O. L. SPAULDING,
Assistant Secretary.
True copy. Attest:
A. F. GALLAGHER.
This stirred Liebes, Tingle, Redpath, et al., up, and they lost no
time in fixing up ‘“‘charges,”’ as follows. Their willing tool in the Treas-
ury Department sends the following improper dispatch in the light
of the department’s orders of March 26, 1890, to wit:
WasuineTon, D.C., May 22, 1891.
Wit1rram H. Wriu1ams, Special Agent,
Care of Collector of Customs, San Francisco, Cal.
It is charged that Special Agent Lavender has neglected his duties, has abused and
insulted Mr. Fowler, and also Dr. Herford, because the latter refused to give him
money to buy skins. that he has been engaged in buying skins, of which he has a
large collection. Investigate, and if he has skins in his possession, compel their deliy-
ery to company upon payment of a reasonable price therefor, to the natives.
(Signed) O. L. SPAULDING,
Assistant Secretary.
True copy. Attest:
A. F. GALLAGHER.
What were these ‘‘charges” which declared that he had been ‘‘en-
gaged in buying skins” of the natives, etc. ?—witness the following—
The following order of the Treasury Department declares that
Lavender had not been violating any rule of the department, as an
1 These were a series of ‘‘small pup” or yearling skins, taken by the old lessees in 1889, which were not
accepted by the new lessees in 1890; but when they were shut out by the modus vivendi from getting
more than 7,500 skins in 1891 they reached out for them.—H. W. E.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 145
officer, in buying skins from the natives, who have ever since 1868
been selling ‘‘pup” and yearling sealskins which they have been per-
mitted to tan and dress for such barter, also fox skins. The following
specific permit declares that Mr. Lavender in ‘‘buying skins” from the
natives (he could buy from none other) was doing exactly what he
had a right to do and what every officer of the Government, and
visitor since 1868 to those islands, had done without objection from
anyone or challenge from the lessees. (Copied from Official Journal,
United States Treasury agent, St. Paul Island).
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
March 26, 1890.
Cuartes J. Gorr, Esq.,
Chief Treasury Agent,
Seal Islands, Alaska.
Sir: * * * Until otherwise instructed you will grant the natives the privilege of
selling the pup skins allowed them by law, including such articles as they may trap
and kill during the winter, provided that no contraband merchandise or spirituo.s
liquors are received in exchange for them. * *
GEORGE C. TICHENOR,
Assistant Secretary.
A trie copy. Attest:
Henry W. EL.iorr.
In spite of this official order (which gave Lavender a clean bill of
health), on Monday, July 23, 1893, Capt. A. W. Lavender was ‘‘re-
lieved”’ at St. George Island, under ‘‘order’’ of ‘‘Chief Special Agent
J. B. Crowley,” dated July 20, 1893, who directs him to ‘‘surrender”’
his office to his (see p. 156, Treasury agent’s journal, Monday, July 23,
1893) ‘‘successor”’ (one Ziebach, who is both ‘‘docile”’ and subservient).
These men, United States Special Agents Goff and Lavender, not
being ‘‘docile,”’ were thus summarily deposed by Liebes (Tingle, Red-
path) and Elkins, the contractors, who, greedy to get all in sight, find
them in their way. The shame and pity of it, that such venal officials
“high up” should have been in control of this valuable public prop-
erty on the islands and in Washington.
Since this summary deposition of Goff and Lavender was made
ostentatiously on the islands to the natives as well as to all the white
residents thereon by Liebes’ tools, Tingle and Redpath, then the other
special agents, Murray and Nettleton, recanted, ate up their truthful
words of 1890, and mired themselves down in the shameful service of
those public enemies, whom they were supposed and trusted to con-
trol and curb.
No man has, as a United States agent, been on these islands since
1890 up to the date of 1913, whom these greedy lessees and their
tools in Washington did not send there or else direct when there and
away from there.
When the agents of the House Committee on Expenditures in the
Department of Commerce went up to these islands in July, 1913, the
first free and open examination was made of the condition of affairs
thereon, which has been permitted since 1890.
This oppression, domination, and subornation of those United
States Treasury agents by the lessees, which is so well illustrated
in these cited cases above of Chief Special Agent Goff and Assistant
Special Agent Lavender, becomes still more pronounced and offensive
in the following case.
53490—14—_10
146 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
When the sealing modus vivendi of 1891 was officially published
in Washington, D. C,, June 15, 1891, its terms ordered a total sus-
pension of the lessees’ work on the islands for the year, save the
illing of 7,500 seals for “‘natives’ food,” to wit:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE GOVERN-
MENT OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY FOR A MODUS VIVENDI IN RELATION TO THE FUR
SEAL FISHERIES IN BERING SEA.
For the purpose of avoiding irritating differences, and with a view to promote the
friendly settlement of the question pending between the two Governments touching
their respective rights in Bering Sea, and for the preservation of the seal species,
the following agreement is made without prejudice to the rights or claims of either
arty:
4 (1) Her Majesty’s Government will prohibit, until May next, seal killing in that
part of Bering Sea lying eastward of the line of demarcation described in Article No. 1
of the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and will promptly use
its Le efforts to insure the observance of this prohibition by British subjects and
vessels.
(2) The United States Government will prohibit seal killing for the same period in
the same part of Bering Sea and on the shores and islands thereof, the property of
the United States (in excess of 7,500 to be taken on the islands for the subsistence and
care of the natives), and will promptly use its best efforts to insure the observance of
this prohibition by United States citizens and vessels.
(3) Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters of
Bering Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States may be
seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of the
High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable to
the authorities of the nation to which they respectively belong, who shall alone have
jurisdiction to try the offense and impose the penalties for the same. The witnesses
and proof necessary to establish the offense shall also be sent with them.
(4) In order to facilitate such proper inquiries as Her Majesty’s Government may
desire to make, with a view to the presentation of the case of that Government before
arbitrators, and in expectation that an agreement for arbitration may be arrived at,
it is agreed that suitable persons designated by Great Britain will be permitted at any
time, upon application, to visit or to remain upon the seal islands during the present
sealing season for that purpose.
Signed and sealed in duplicate at Washington this 15th day of June, 1891, on behalf
of their respective Governments, by William F. Wharton, Acting Secretary of State
of the United States, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, G. C. M. G., K. C. B., H. B. M.,
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary.
Wi11am F. WHarton.
JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.
On the 3d of May, 1891, preceding this publication of the above
modus vivendi, the daily papers published an order from President
Harrison revoking a secret permit for the lessees to kill seals on the
islands during the season of 1891, just ahead. That this action of
the President was due to the uncovering of a shameful deal between
the lessees and certain high officials the following sworn testimon
declares beyond dispute. After Mr. Goff was ‘‘transferred” April
5, 1891, the following sworn testimony (which no one has presumed
to deny) declares what took place at the instance of the lessees, in
Washington:
{Hearing No. 10, pp. 665, 666, April 24, 1912, House Committee on Expenses in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor.]
Mr. Exurorr. 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, trans-
ferred;” 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. 147
In order to fully understand what this secret permit thus given to those lessees
really was—what an infamous transaction it really was—it is necessary for this com-
mittee to look back of April 2, 1891 (when the Mill’s letter was dated), a little ways,
to observe the following facts, to wit:
On November 19, 1890, and on January 6 following, Secretary William Windom
and Henry W. Elliott went over to the residence of James G. Blaine, Secretary of
State, in Lafayette Square. In his study there, on both occasions, Mr. Blaine dis-
cussed with Windom and Elliott the whole fur-seal question, and after a long session
(on January 6) Mr. Blaine agreed to lay aside the claims of the lessees and adopt the
Elliott modus vivendi, only stipulating that the closed season called for in it should
be five years instead of seven.
On January 6, 1891, Secretary Blaine declared to Henry W. Elliott, in the presence
of Hon, Nelson Dingley, jr., chairman Ways and Means Committee, House of Repre-
sentatives, that he was busy with the details of arrangement for this modus vivendi.
He asked Elliott to be patient; to say nothing, and write nothing about it. Mr.
Elliott promised him that it should be done, and he obeyed that request faithfully.
On April 7, 1891, Mr. James G. Blaine pledged himself to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the
British Minister, during a conference at the State Department, to that modus vivendi
plan of Elliott’s, provided this offer was made officially, as first coming from Lord
Salisbury. Sir Julian Pauncefote accepted the terms, and sent them by post that day
to the British Premier in London. (See British Blue Book covering these dates,
itl esise,” etc:).
On April 11, 1891, Secretary James G. Blaine authorized Charles Foster to give a
secret permit to Stephen B. Elkins, for the lessees, authorizing the killing of 60,000
seals, ‘‘if they can be found” on the seal islands of Alaska! Think of it! Only four
days earlier this high official had promised to suspend all killing on the islands if
the British Government would do so in the water, and if the British Government
would make this [his] offer of suspension to officially appear as if first coming from
Lord Salisbury And Sir Julian had at once engaged to carry it out, and was then
busy with it! (See British Blue Book, ‘“‘U. S.,’’ March-June, 1891, covering these
letters, etc.).
Now, your committee can realize the pressure which the ‘‘Ogden Mills” letter of
April 2, 1891, exerted on these particular high officials of our Government; what use
those false ‘‘affidavits” were put to, you can understand.
How was that secret permit of April 11 found out and soon made public? By the
rarest of accident. It was thus:
On or about April 8, Sir Julian Pauncefote was a guest at a certain private or social
dinner given tohim. His hostess sat beside him; during the progress of this entertain-
ment, Sir Julian remarked to her that he believed that he had been instrumental at
last in settling the vexed fur-seal question, and that Mr. Blaine and he had just agreed
that no further slaughter on the islands or in the Bering Sea was to take place for at
least six or seven years, or that until both Governments had thoroughly investigated
the conditions, no killing was to be resumed, at least.
On the evening of April 11, following, this lady was at another social entertainment,
and there overhead the attorney for the North American Commercial Co. congratu-
late an unknown person who stood beside him in the reception line over their success
during the day in getting Charles Foster to give them a permit to kill seals; that
“nobody in Washington knew anything about it,’’ and ‘‘nobody was to know any-
thing about it” either, etc.
In a moment it flashed on the mind of this lady that Sir Julian had been duped or
those men were in error; second thought told her that the lessees’ attorney (Gen.
N. L. Jeffries) was one who knew his business, and it must be true. She had heard
me tell how Mr. Blaine was pledged to a close season; so, on the following day she
called on me at the Smithsonian Institution and told me of what she had heard, all
as above stated.
Astonished and mortified, I at once set to work to find out the truth. I knew that if
this was a secret permit, that if I went up either to Mr. Blaine or to Secretary Foster,
they would not admit it; it must be secret or it would be published, and I would, too,
have been called in and notified of such an order, and the reasons why it was given over
the denial of it by myself and all of the official reports of the department’s seal agents.
As Congress had adjourned March 4, 1891, there was no way of getting a resolution of
inquiry and the like introduced and passed. I therefore asked Congressman William
McKinley, Jr., who was still in the city, to call on Secretary Charles Foster and put
this inquiry sharply and squarely up to him.
Maj. McKinley did so. On Monday morning—I 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
148 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
+
order on April 11, and had given it after a full understanding with Mr. Blaine, who
on that day had informed him that there was no hope of getting any modus vivendi
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.)
Ii 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 Fran-
cisco and cleared for the islands. I knew that sucha 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.
Thus, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, you see clearly step by step
the sin and shame and public loss wrought by this “Ogden Mills’’ letter, which has
been read into your record by Mr. Bowers on the 5th instant and done by him in the
fatuous conceit that it discredited me; that those bogus “affidavits” and that false
letter of Capt. Henley, which it inclosed to Secretary Charles Foster, branded me as
a conspirator hired by the old lessees to break up the business of their successful com-
etitors.
“ Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this is bad enough, but the
worst of my recitation to you anent this “Ogden Mills’’ letter is to come, for I have this
to tell you and to vouch for.
When the publication of President Harrison’s veto of this seal-killing permit was
published in the New York Herald, May 3, 1891, Secretary Charles Foster had to give
ae to the press some warrant for his action in the premises. What do you think he
id?
He prepared a quoted “interview’’ with himself and had it published in the New
York Tribune (May 9, 1891, I think). In this statement he quotes parts of this Mills
letter, but as though it was his own version, and cites these “affidavits’’ as being
his warrant for discrediting the official agents of the department. No mention of
Ogden Mills is made by Foster in this Tribune article [or of the receipt of this letter
aforesaid, by him].
Well, as President Harrison had acted so promptly and so honestly in the premises
and was hurrying back to Washington to take up this wretched mess and do the right
thing, I dropped the subject and returned to Cleveland and went to work in my
orchards and my vineyard there. I was happy in the thought that I had foiled those
venal officials and shut out those greedy butchers. I paid nofurther personal attention
to this matter in Washington.
From 1891, April 22, to the end of November, 1894, I had no further hand in that
inception and finish of that work of the Bering Sea tribunal, which framed those idle
and abortive rules and regulations to protect and preserve the fur-seal herd of Alaska
from destruction.
When, however, the failure, utter flat failure, of those regulations was self-confessed
by the close of the first season of their working, 1894, I came to Washington again and
sought Gov. Dingley. Together, with Senator Frye, we agreed to make an effort to
reopen and revise those worse than useless Bering Sea rules by legislation which would
compel that revision. To that end I prepared a letter, which Gov. Dingley had read
at the clerk’s desk, December 11, 1894, in the House of Representatives, and he intro-
duced, January following, a bill to favor the recommendations of my letter so read to
the House. (H. R. 8633; Rept. 1849.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 149
The bill was fully considered by the Ways and Means Committee. I appeared for
it; the lessees approved it. It was reported out and passed by the House on February
2. 1895, but could not be reached in the Senate before adjournment sine die, March 4,
ollowing.
Now, gentlemen, what happened? We come right back to this letter of Ogden
Mills. A new administration 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?), as his authority for that suppression of my report of 1890, and those
oi my official associates, Messrs. Goff, Murray, Nettleton, and Lavender.
I called on Secretary John G. Carlisle, of the Treasury. He evinced the liveliest
interest in this question and asked Assistant Secretary Charles S. 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 published notes of them as his official warrant for
suppressing the sworn official reports of Charles I. 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 perjured 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 abstracted
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 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 ~
““Oeden Mills” letter above cited are all dead save one. That survivor of this job
is one James C. Redpath. He has been the general overseer and assistant general
manager of the lessees ever since May 21, 1890, up to the hour that their lease expired,
May 1, 1890.
In connection with the felonious abstraction of these “‘affidavits” from the Treasury
files on or about March 4, 1895, as above stated, Mr. Hamlin and I searched in vain for
the official joint statement signed by Chief Special Agent Charles I. Goff and myself,
setting forth the specific reasons why we stopped the work of the lessees on July 20,
1890, on account of killing female seals, etc.
This joint statement was drawn up in Gen. A. B. Nettleton’s office in the Treasury
Department; he was then the Acting Secretary, since Mr. Windom’s sudden death,
January 29, 1891, left the Secretary’s office vacant. Gen. Nettleton asked us to
prepare and sign this statement, because he said that it might be necessary to have
it in case the lessees sued the Government or attempted to do so. This affidavit, or
joint statement rather, was signed on or about the middle of February, I think; I
did not take a copy of it at the time, because it was entered and filed the day we
signed it, and I had previously given Secretary Windom a report specifically made
on this subject September 7, 1890.
Pursuant to this understanding between President Harrison and
his Secretary of the Treasury, Charles Foster, as early as May 4,
1891, that no killmg by the lessees would be permitted, except
7,500 for natives food, the following order is found on the Chief
Special Agent’s Journal, St. Paul Island, under date of entry of
‘July 11th, 1891”:
On page 355, under date of ‘‘Wednesday, June 10, 1891,” Special
Agent Joseph E. Murray makes the following entry:
While I was away from the village the Revenue Cutter Rush arrived and the
following officers and other persons arrived and landed: W. H. Williams, Treasury
agent, 8. R. Nettleton, assistant agent, Milton Barnes, a special employee, J. Stanley
Brown, special agent, Mrs. Nettleton and daughter.
True copy. Attest:
A. F. GALLEGHER.
150 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Also this is entered, as follows, on the same day as above, to wit:
[Telegram.]
WasuineTon, D. C., May 27, 1891.
Maj. W. H. Wituams, Special Agent,
Care of Revenue Cutter Rush.
The Rush will receive orders to sail to-day. You and the other agents will take
passage on her. On the Corwin will follow in a few days. By her will be forwarded
to you full instructions. The memorandum copy of proposed instruction which you
now have will be your guide until Corwin arrives. Maximum number is not to be
determined and other modifications are probable. If 7,500 seal are taken before
Corwin arrives you will stop killing and await instructions. See that the other agents
take passage with you.
CHARLES FostER,
Secretary.
True copy. Attest:
A. F. GALLEGHER.
And, under date of June 13, 1891 (p. 357), the following is entered
OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Paul Island, June 13, 1891.
A. W. LAVENDER,
Assistant Agent, St. George Island.
Sm: You are informed that the Secretary of the Treasury for the present has lim-
ited the killing of fur seals for skins on the seal islands to seven thousand five hundred
7,500) for the year 1891. You will permit the killing of one thousand five hundred
1,500) seals for skins on the island of St. George. Care should be taken that no more
than the above amount are killed without further instructions.
~ Wirit1am H. WiiiAMs,
Treasury Agent in charge of Seal Islands.
A true copy. Attest:
A. F. GALLAGHER.
Under date of June 13, 1891 (continued on p. 358) the following is
entered:
OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Paul Island, June 18, 1891.
GEORGE R. TINGLE, Esq.,
General Agent North American Commercial Co.
Srr: You are informed that by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury the number
of fur seals to be killed for skins on St. Paul and St. George Islands for the year 1891 is
limited to seven thousand five hundred (7,500). The above instructions may be modi-
fied later in the season; if so, you will be duly notified.
Respectfully, yours,
Wriu1am H. WrmiiaMs,
Treasury Agent in charge of the Seal Islands.
A true copy. Attest:
A. F. GALLAGHER.
And this also, clearly and specifically stopping the killing at 6,000
seals on St. Paul, is entered on page 357, to wit:
OrricE OF SpecIAL AGENT, TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Paul Island, June 18, 1891.
GeorGE R. Trncte, Esq.
General Agent North American Commercial Co.
Smr: In pursuance of department instructions the killing of seals for skins, until
further notice, will be limited to 6,000 on the island of St. Paul and 1,500 on the island
of St. George.
Respectfully,
Wim H. WILiiAMs,
Treasury Agent in charge of Seal Islands.
A true copy:
A. F. GALLAGHER.
7
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 151
Here we have the most explicit and timely orders of the Secretary
of the Treasury that not to exceed 7,500 seals are to be taken on the
islands during the season of 1891 (that they are expressly taken under
the modus vivendi is carefully concealed by the Secretary, and that
they are to be taken only as food for the natives is also carefully
omitted—but the limit of 7,500 for the year is positively stated).
Did these Treasury agents, Williams and I. Stanley Brown enforce
that order? No! Witness the following exposure of their disobedi-
ence and malfeasance in the premises: (and for which service I.
Stanley Brown was made general manager of the lessees business on
these islands by D. O. Mills and Senator S. B. Elkins, after he had
ordered the entire control, July 8, 1892, of his office turned over to
the lessees’ agents. See Exhibit B.)
On page 361, Official Journal of St. Paul Island, under date of
Saturday, June 20, 1891, is the following entry:
The company made a drive from Tolstoi, killing 116, filling the quota of 7,500.
Here is the official and final statement that on June 20, 1891, just
one week after the chief special agent, Williams, has notified the
lessees that the lilling must stop at 6,000 seals, when reached on
St. Paul Island, that that limit was reached. ‘
Did the lessees stop? No. Witness the following proof of tha
complete control and illegal work prosecuted by them:
Thursday, June 25, 1891 (p. 365 Official Journal).—Made a drive
from Zoltoi for natives’ food and killed 209. All accepted; prime.
Monday, June 29, 1891 (p. 367)—Made a drive for native food
from the reef, 400; 395 prime; 5 cut; all accepted; 1,620 seals were
driven; 75 per cent of the number driven were turned back into the
sea. * * * The Rush left about 11 a. m. for Unalaska, taking as
a passenger Treasury Agent Lavender, bound for St. George Island.
Tuesday, June 30, 1891.—* * * ‘Treasury Agent Murray and
Mr. Leibes left this morning for Northeast Point.
Wednesday, July 8, 1891 (p. 382).—Made a drive from Zoltoi and
killed 100 for natives’ food. All accepted.
Thursday, July 9, 1891 (p. 382).—The revenue cutter Corwin came
to anchor at the west side at 2 p. m. from Unalaska.
Monday, July 13, 1891 (p. 385).—Made a drive from Zoltoi and
killed 121 seals for natives’ food. All accepted. Revenue cutter
Corwin returned from St. George Island and anchored on the west
side, bringing as a passenger for this island, Maj. Williams, chief
Treasury agent.
Wednesday, July 15, 1891—Made a drive from Lukannon and
killed 122 seals for natives’ food. All accepted.
Tuesday, July 21, 1891.—Drove seals from Middle Hill and killed
179, of which 178 were accepted as prime. One rejected; small.
Was given to the natives and one was given to H. M. 8. Pheasant, to
be sent as a specimen to Provincial Museum, Victoria, B. C.
Monday, July 27,1891 (p. 390).—Drove seals from Middle Hill and
killed for food 248. All the skins accepted as prime. :
Tuesday, July 28, 1891 (p. 390).—Steamer Danube, from Victoria,
B. C., came to anchor this morning and landed the British commis-
sioners, Sir George Vaden-Powell and Dr. George Mercer Dawson,
also their two secretaries. At 6 p. m. the United States steamer
Albatross, Capt. Tanner, from San Francisco, with the American
152 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. —
commissioners on board, Prof. Mendenhall, Dr. Merriam, Messrs
Brown and Lavender, came from St. George.
Wednesday, July 29, 1891— * * * In the evening the British
and American commissioners held a joint meeting at the Government
house. The meeting was a private one.
This ‘private’? meeting was not private in so far as the British
commissioners were concerned. They demanded the reason why the
killing was going on for food seals then, when there was no need for
it. Why more than 7,500 seals had been killed up to date of their
arrival, and was still in progress ?
Thereupon Williams and Stanley Brown told them that they had
not received their instructions to that effect until the arrival of the
Corwin on the 9th of July last, and that the killing had not exceeded
that instruction. The official journal quoted above convicts these
tools of the lessees of telling an untruth to the British commissioners,
who at the moment could not deny their falsehoods.
That is why this ‘‘meeting” is called a ‘private’ one in the
Williams-Brown journal, and as above entered therein by Joseph
Murray, assistant agent. H. W. E.
Monday, August 3, 1891 (p. 393).—Drove seals from Reef rookery
aad killed for food 118, one of which was cut. All were accepted.
Sunday, August 9, 1891 (p. 397).—The Albatross sailed for St.
George with the American commissioners, Prof. Mendenhall and Dr.
Merriam, aboard, also Mr. J. Stanley Brown.
Monday, August 10, 1891 (p. 400).—Drove seals from Reef,
Lukannon, Tolstoi, and Middle Hill and killed for food 408, of which
number 405 were accepted. Two given to the natives.
Tuesday, August 11,1891— * * * The sealskins were counted
by Maj. Williams and they counted to 10,782 for which receipts were
made out in triplicate. * * * After the division was made Maj.
Williams went on board the Farrallon, and the followmg employees
of the North American Commercial Co. also went aboard to go to
San Francisco: George R. Tingle, B. Liebes, A. Hansen, Dr. Hereford,
and G. Lee. Mr. Redpath went on board to go to Unalaska for a few
days. The plan is to sail about 2 o’clock tomorrow morning. Before
leaving Maj. Willams instructed Assistant Agent Murray to write
instructions for the assistant agents who are to remain on the island
of St. Paul and St. George during the winter.
Thursday, August 13, A. D. 1891 (p. 402).—In pursuance of an
assignment of Maj. W. H. Willams, representing the United States
Treasury Department, I this day entered upon the duties of assistant
agent in charge on this island. * * *
Mitton BARNES,
Assistant Agent in Charge.
At page 406, under date of Friday, August 28, 1901, the followimg
entry appears:
OFFICE OF SPECIAL AGENT,
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
St. Paul Island, August 21, 1891.
Mitton BARNES,
Sir: Before leaving for Washington, D. C., Maj. W. H. Williams instructed me to
write instructions for the assistant agents who will have charge of the fur seal islands
during his absence.
* * * No seals are to be killed for food or for any other purpose prior to Novem-
ber 1, nor even then if it be known they are stagey. * * * The whole number of
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 153
seals to be killed on St. George Island for natives’ food from August 10, 1891, to May 1,
1892, is limited to 800, and it is of the utmost importance that that number shall not be
exceeded under any circumstances. So much depends upon the faithful fulfillment
of our national pledges we must not do anything to prejudice them. * * *
JosePH Murray,
First Assistant Agent.
Here is the written record officially made of the fact that the lessees
actually continued to kill seals (on St. Paul—4,782 of them—large,
choice seals) after they had been ordered not to do so by the Treasury
Department.
ae still more; if it had not been for that protest which the British
commissioners made July 29, as above stated, in that ‘‘private”
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
uick action of the British commissioners; the prohibition of the
hesidont, 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 ulegal work, not to stop it; a fulgur
brutum, in short. 5
They took 10,782 skins on St. Paul, when ordered 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
ance orders prohibiting that killing posted June 138, 1891, on the
islands.
Mr. J. Stanley-Brown who shares this malfeasance with Special
Agent Willams in 1891, came up again, June 9, 1892, as the United
States chief special agent, and on Friday, July 8, 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.)
W. H. Williams, the agent who was put (suddenly) April 5, 1891,
in Gofi’s place by Charles Foster, and who was so selected because
Foster had complete control uver him, went up to St. Paul Island
and landed there June 10, 1891. tle was accompanied by Joseph
Stanley-Brown, who also went as Charles Foster’s “own man”’ to
get the facts.
It will be noted in the foregoing statement, that when Williams,
after cooperating with Brown in this killing of some 14,000 seals
during the season of 1891, in violaticn 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 these islands? No. Mr. Joseph Stanley-
Brown takes his place; and, on Thursday, June 9, 1892, arrives on
St. Paul Island as the chief special agent in charge.
What had Williams done? Why was he quietly put over and
transferred to London as Goff before him fad 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
154 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
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 considerable 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 unoflicially, as I have no part in the present
deliberation of the commission. (Fur Trade Review: Oct. 1, 1898, p. 446, New York.)
And as for J. Stanley-Brown, this is the same ‘“‘scientist’’ and
‘““‘keen business man’? who was introduced to the House Committee
on Expenditures in the Department 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 num-
bers 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 prob-
lems connected 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.
ares House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and
abor.)
The ‘‘value” of Joseph Stanley-Brown’s ‘‘studies”’ to the lessees
can be at once grasped by the most casual observer, but to the
public interests which he was sworn to guard, and paid to do so,
that value, no man living or dead, can find the least evidence of.
That the greedy lessees however, found him “valuable” enough,
goes without question, for we find this entry made on p. 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,
superintendent of North American Commercial Co., Mr. Chichester, and Mr. Arm-
strong.
The services of Joseph Stanley-Brown are invoked by the Bureau
of Fisheries to renew the seal lease and defeat pending legislation
which prevents that renewal, and the following sworn proof of this
collusion is submitted herewith:
_ Mr. Exzrorr. 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 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.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 155
“December 7, 1909. This letter from the ‘bureau,’ dated December 16, 1909, and
signed by Barton W. Evermann, urges Bowers to send agents to New York, there to
‘educate’ the Camp Fire Club and induce them to agree to the ‘bureau’s idea of
renewing the lease,’ as follows:
“(Exuisir No. 6.]
“DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
“BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
** Washington, December 16, 1909.
“The CoMMISSIONER: }
“The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Campfire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation
designed to prevent the re-leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on
the islands for 10 years except for natives’ food, and to secure the opening of negotia-
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon,
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904.
**As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent
killing and the renewal of the seal island lease, the advisability is suggested of having
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members
of the 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.
“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 ’’
(not printed):
LETTERS OF CHIEF SPECIAL AGENT CHAS. J. GOFF, WHO WAS REMOVED
FROM THE SEAL ISLANDS OF ALASKA BY THE LESSEES APRIL 5, 1891,
BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT PERMIT THEM TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND
INJURE THE PUBLIC PRESERVES THEREON, WRITTEN TO SHOW HIS
FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RASCALITY WHICH SECURED HIS REMOVAL,
MAY 9, 1891, AND AUGUST 16, 1891, AND EXPOSING THE SAME.
(Mr. Goff was the brother of United States Senator Nathan Goff,
of West Virginia. He died several years ago.—H. W. E.)
MontreaL, May 9, 1891.
My Dear Mr. Exxiorr: Your favor just received, and I am glad
you are still in the land of the living and ready and willing to expose
the Bering Sea steal. You say there will be a commission go to the
islands this summer to investigate. I am afraid Tingle will have
1 COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
HOvUsE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, June 9, 1911.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR, GEORGE M, BOWERS, COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.
Mr. Bowers. No new lease was made, but the killing was done under governmental supervision.
Mr. TOWNSEND. You will be questioned about that later. After the first suggestion of this bill you
know of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legislation?
Mr. Bowers. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legislation.
Mr. Townsend. And if any evidence should be introduced to the contrary, it would surprise you?
Mr. Bowers. So far as I am concerned it would, yes; and as far as I am concerned it would the Bureau
of Fisheries and the department. [Hearing No. 3, p. 157, July 6, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce and Labor. ]
156 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
slaughtered the herd before anyone gets ready to start. It will be
his plan to kill old and young, to make a good showing. He will kill
yearlings, for the price of seal skins will insure him a return of his
money on them. He will use every effort to make as large a daily
killing as possible to flaunt in our faces. The new agents will see
this, and, not posted by Murray and Lavender, will be led astray.
This is surely the plan mapped out by the gang. Anything to down
our reports, if they have to pass through fire and brimstone, and, my
dear sir, that man Nettleton is a tool in their hands; he is the most
gay deceiver of all. I knowsome few secrets I will tell you when I see
you next. I hardly think an investigation will help our party, for
this is one of the foulest steals I ever knew, and it will give the Demo-
crats a war whoop in the coming campaign and one that will bear
fruit. :
If the seals are saved through your efforts you will have gained
your point, and why not then rest upon your well-earned laurels and
sleep upon your well-loaded arms for a future combat with Tingle, ete.
Let me again warn you that there is a deep and well concocted
scheme to have reports come down this fall in direct opposition to
ours, and no one knows what all of this planning and skirmishing may
bring forth. A full Ohio delegation, one that could be trusted. Do
you think there is any ambiguity about that sentence? The cap-
tains or commanders of the cutters are against us. Tingle will raise
the cry that he who opposes will be deposed. You know how he will
coach his entire surrounding; then again, those we left behind ma
fall into line under this great pressure, and we are left standing
alone. I know all of this won’t make seals; they care not for that;
they are fighting for vindication, and when they have secured that
they will come forward and suggest a close season, claiming the
increase of poaching this year has made it a necessity. The public
will be none the wiser. They will take charge of the islands, and the
steal will go. Remember this, and also remember that what I
write you is “entre nous.”
When do you expect Murray and Lavender down? They will be
down early, I should think. Please keep me posted on their arrival.
With regards, your friend,
CHARLES J. GOFF.
MontTrREAL, August 16, 1891.
My Dear Mr. Extiotr: Tingle is surely trying, with the effort of
his life, to place us before the public in a ridiculous light; and I am
fearful that he will succeed, but, my dear sir, it will only be for a
short while. Murray will come down with his mendacious statement,
and Tingle will have one from him and all his employees, and it will
present to the public a very plausible contradiction of my report,
and your thesis.
You remember I told you Tingle would never cease working, that
he would resort to any means foul or fair to accomplish his end; see
the double duplicity of the man, securing, as he says he did, Murray’s
removal while here, and then returning and courting his favor and
using him as a henchman to do his infamous work. Poor Murray;
Was ever man so treated? It kept me constantly guarding him last
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 157
year to prevent Tingle from fooling him. And I was always fearful
that he had not the determination to withstand the pressure brought
upon him by the company crowd. I don’t claim to be a scientist
or capable of writing an extensive dissertation upon seal life, but I
am surprised that Murray would assert that he wrote my report.
He is surely losing his wits, as this acknowledgment will give him
away, if he assumes to hold the position which Lutz alleges he does,
and has no force whatever upon the subject matter at issue. Now,
Professor, if this crowd presses us too hard, I want you to call for an
investigation and I will stand by you until the last. JI was opposed
to it all along, but Williams, Brown, and Barnes can’t misrepresent
facts and expect us to accept their statements, placing us in a false
light before the American people, without an effort to vindicate our
actions. We are right, were right last summer, are right now, and
may we live long enough to see right prevail. You can count on me
standing by you in this matter, until I am called over Jordan; and,
if I meet Tingle on the other side, I’ll quarrel with him there over it.
Your lasting friend,
CHARLES J. GoFF.
SEPTEMBER 18, 1891.
Prof. H. W. Exxiorr: Your letter of the 5th came duly to hand
and I am so sorry I am unable to give more than the most meager
details respecting the kuling on St. Paul and St. George up to the
15th. I have just learned that it was prearranged that Murray
was to be decapitated officially and that at Washington ‘Tingle
represented him as being crazy and consequently entirely unfit
to hold any responsible position under the Government at the Seal
Islands. It seems Tingle knew all the time that he was patting
and pumping Murray that the latter’s tongue had already been lorg
enough to hang himself with. However, I imagine that Tingle
represented to Murray that the latter had no friends; that they had
all ‘‘gone back”’ on him, just as he did to me, although, at the time,
I knew he waslying. Tingle also possibly represented himself as the
only person able to save Murray in case he was in danger. He could
cause the removal of whomsoever he pleased; and he could, if he wanted
to, cause any one’s position to be secure. Murray eagerly swallowed
such batt as this together with all the belittling statements and slan-
ders that Tingle could invent respecting yourself and Mr. Goff. It
appears as though Tingle did feally intend, at least for a while, to do
something towardsrewarding Murray. At anyrateMr.Tingle prepared
and wrote out a statement to the effect that ‘‘We, the undersigned,”
having messed with the Hon. Jos. Murray for the past 15 months,
had ever found him to be a most worthy upright and honorable
gentleman, and a wise, capable, intelligent, and efficient offe r,
always kind to the natives and a jealous and watchful guardian
of the Government’s interests, etc.
The paper was handed to me by Tingle with the information that
he would like me to read it over, sign, and return it to him. It was
already signed by J. C. Redpath, N. A. C. Co.’s agent on St. Paul
Tsland, and Edward T. Baldwin, bookkeeper. I read it over and after
considering a moment I returned it to Tingle with the remark that
I really did not think I could put my name conscientiously to that.
158 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Tingle was somewhat nettled, apparently, and thereafter nothing
was left undone to make my position on the island as uncomfortable
as possible. Every move | made was watched, reported, and com
mented on. One would have thought I had committed some great
crime, or that I had the smallpox, the way I was shunned. Even
the natives did not dare to be seen speaking to me. [I felt that
everything I did was subject to be grossly misconstrued. This was
the condition of affairs m regard to myself shortly after Tingle’s
arrival. But now Tingle’s animosity was intensified. From the first
I did not dare to venture near the rookeries nor near the seals on the
slaughtering grounds, because I could not feel certain that I would
not thereby subject myself to mean and insulting remarks by Tingle.
In this way I failed to know just exactly how things were going on.
Nevertheless, I can say this much: As soon as Tingle cited (on the
7th, I think) he gave orders to kill as many seals as possible before
the 15th, and to take even as small skins as 44 or 4} pounds. I
heard him give the order a number of times. I thought at the time
that he wanted to hurry and get as many skins as possible before
new orders arrived, and I supposed that he expected these new orders
to arrive on or about the 15th. I can easily see now that he very
likely was being aided with information by the politicians, otherwise,
it occurred to me, how could he have known wee the proclamation
was going to be signed on the 15th. Surely it was no accident. At
any rate, before the 15th seals were very scarce, and there can be no
doubt that Fowler, Redpath, and Tingle never worked harder in
their lives to get the seals, but the seals weren’t there to get. Drives
of 80, 100, 150, and 200 were made, according to report brought to
me by the natives. I had an idea Tingle wanted to get 7,500 skins
before the 15th in order to say: ‘‘ Well, we got 7,500 so easy; we got
them all before the 15th.” But, at any rate, counting all they had
before, they couldn’t make up to 7,500 until the 20th of June.
Williams claims they took 6,250 skins after the 15th, and the Farallon
brought down something like 14,000 skins. I do not remember the
exact number the Farallon brought down, but it was considerably
over 13,000. The killmg was stopped on the 28th or 29th of July.
These latter drives were much larger than the earlier ones, and the
so-called food skins were the very choicest to be had and the largest.
A very small number was not obtained, despite considerable anxiety
and effort, on St. George Island, until later, much later, I believe,
than the 20th of June.
Murray and Lavender are yet on St. Paul and St. George. They
are expected very shortly on the Corwin. Murray tried very hard on
the islands to blarney Lavender, but apparently without entire suc-
cess. If Murray stuck to it that the seals were not there, is 1t pos-
sible that he would have been removed just for that? Apparently
Goff was not wanted. Tingle was almost demoralized when he
learned that there was a likelihood of your coming up with the British
commissioners. You never saw a more nervous, fussy, and frightened
man than he was at that time. Lavender is not wanted. It is
rumored his head is tocome off. And now I learn that Murray is to be
removed, I suppose the proviso is—if he persists in advocating what
is displeasing to Mr. Elkins. Nettleton, t supposed, they were afraid
to attack on account of his brother. i
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 159
Williams is not in favor of the company appomting the school-
teachers and physicians. Neither was Mr. Goff. In case the Goy-
ernment should appomt physicians next year I would like to have
the job. I should give up any position f had in order to accept any
such appomtment. Wouldn’t I like to show Tingle I could get there
whether he wanted me to or not However, after a while, when Con-
eress meets, if you have the opportunity, I would be grateful for any
effort you might make to obtain for me an appointment as physician
at one of the Indian agencies. I have applied at all the steamship
offices, but there seems but little iralbnersel of my obtaining anything
to do. Mrs. Lutz sends cordial and kindest regards to Mrs. Elliott,
My little Mary is quite a large girl now, and is growing nicer all the
time.
Very truly, your friend, C7 Ax umzs
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Hovustr or REPRESENTATIVES,
Wednesday, April 24, 1912.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding,
JOHN HAY IS INFORMED BY HON. JOHN A. KASSON OF THE SUBORNATION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE LESSEES OF THE SEAL ISLANDS. 1890-1891.
[Statement of Henry W. Elliott.]
The CHarrMAN. Allright then. I suppose it is the sense of the committee that the
statement shall go in?
Mr. Parton. I have no objection.
The CHarrman. Then it is so ordered.
WASHINGTON, May 12, 1903.
Dear Cox. Hay: I do not know why the inclosed is sent to me, except for my
pathy with Elliott in the matter of the Alaskan seals. Nor do I know what to
© with it except to place it at your disposition to decide if there is wisdom in hig
suggestion.
Very faithfully, yours, KASSson.
any” me by Mr. Hay, in Department of State, June 20, 1903, 11.40 a. m.—
LaKkEwoop, 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 m
represention 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 asa stranger, personally, to Sir Julian in 1891, on account of Mr. Blaine’s
“infirmity”? of purpose. Mr. Hay can go to Sir Michael with vastly greater effect
and tact than I went to Sir Julian. He can take these authentic records, illustrations,
facts, and figures which I have given him recently and lay them with great emphasis
before the British ambassador.
Something must be done this summer and before Congress meets. Otherwise, if
naught comes from the State Department, the pending seal bill, now lying in the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be passed in short order, as a measure
absolutely necessary to save the fur-seal species of Alaska from complete extinction.
160 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
It would be a great feather in Mr. Hay’s cap, and also for that of Sir Michael, if such
a modus for 1904 was agreed upon as was that of 1891.
I have never said a word to Mr. Hay about this particular matter and the securing
in 1891 of that modus vivendi which I urged in my report of 1890. I do not know
whether I ought to. If you think it proper and will serve as a useful side light, I
venture to ask that you see Mr. Hay and talk it over with him, for, really, the more I
think of it the more I am inclined to believe that Sir Michael can easily do again
what his distinguished predecessor did in the premises, and for which action he was
highly rewarded by his Government, in spite of the bitter opposition of the Canadians.
With every regard for you, I am, faithfully, your friend,
Henry W. Extiorr.
Hon. Joun A. Kasson, Washington, D. C.
THE SWORN PROOF ENCLOSED TO JOHN HAY BY MR. KASSON MAY 12, 1903, OF THE
SUBORNATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE SEAL CONTRACTORS, 1890-
1891.
Wasuineton, D. C., December 10, 1901,
During a call made upon Mr. John A. Kasson this morning and for the purpose of
understanding fully what the High Joint Commission did about the fur-seal question
before it was strangled by the Boundary dispute February 22, 1899, Mr. Kasson said
to me that I ought to reduce to writing that account which I had given him of the
adoption of my modus vivendi of 1891-1893; this account to be sealed and not broken
during the life of the British ambassador, the other party, James G. Blaine, bemg
dead.
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 Juhan.
Wednesday, April 22, 1891: After due reflection and in spite of the fact that I had
never met the British minister, I resolved this morning to call upon him and put
the question directly to him whether or no he had refused to entertain any proposi-
tion for a modus vivendi in Bering Sea for the protection of the fur seals, as he was
charged with doing by Charles Foster on the 13th instant (see preceding memoranda).
I took the Connecticut Avenue street car on F, corner Tenth NW., and entered
the British Legation door at half past 10 o’clock in the morning; the servant took my
card, left me standing in the hall, returned in a few minutes saying that Sir Julian
was dressing and would see me when he came down. I was ushered into the office,
which opens directly from the hall, opposite the drawing-room. I had penciled on
my card the words “concerning the fur seals of Alaska,’’ so that he might know what
I was after.
I was not alone more than 10 or 15 minutes before Sir Julian came into the room,
and he greeted me with the greatest courtesy, saying that he had heard a great deal
about me and that he had asked Secretary Blaine to introduce me several times.
I replied, saying that I too had often asked Mr. Blaine to present me, but that he
had not done so.
‘“‘T have called on you, Sir Julian, this morning on my own responsibility. I do
not come from Mr. Blaine. I have come io make an inquiry which may be improper;
if it is, pardon me and give no answer, but I want to inform you that an order to kill
60,000 fur seals was given to the lessees of the seal islands on the 11th instant; that
this order to kill was based upon the refusal of your Government to unite with mine
in a modus vivendi whereby all killing on land and in the sea is to be suspended
during the coming season in Bering Sea. If this refusal of your Government to act
with mine is authentic, then I want to say to you from my full knowledge and under-
standing of the question that killing 60,000 young male seals on the Pribilof Islands
this summer means the absolute extermination of that life up there, and the shame
of this doing is upon your Government.”’
Sir 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 ii 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 thai Mr. Blaine knows what he does want. I have
been having quite a time trying to find out.”’
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 161
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. EL LLiort.
THE RECAPITULATION OF THIS SUBORNATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE BY THE
SEAL LESSEES 1890-1891.
[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 IJ 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 he said in the premises at the present time and while this busi-
ness is pending between Canada and ourselves.
Just think of this terrible revelation made by Sir Julian of Mr. Blaine’s duplicity,
and worse, as Secretary of State, thus made to me, April 22, 1891—think of it in the
light of the following facts, to wit:
March 15, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote urges Mr. Blaine to agree upon a modus
vivendi for the coming season in Bering Sea, whereby no killing of fur seals shall be
done on the Seal Islands of Alaska by American citizens and no killing at sea shall
be permitted for British subjects; in the meantime both high contracting parties shall
carefully study the question and then agree upon a plan of proper resumption of seal
killing, etc.
Mr. Blaine demurred and suggested a 25-mile zone of pelagic prohibition around
the Seal Islands instead; to this Sir Julian objected, saying that it was impracticable
and would not be easily enforced, etc.
April 7, 1891. Sir Julian again urges Mr. Blaine to unite with his Government in
a total suspension of all killing of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and in the sea of
Bering, during the coming season of 1891. Mr. Blaine agrees to do so if the British
Government will notify him of its desire and willingness to do so.
Sir Julian Pauncefote then mails to Lord Salisbury this proposal of Mr. Blaine to
stop all killing on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1891, if the British Govern-
ment will prohibit its subjects from all killing of fur seals at sea (in Bering Sea), during
this period aforesaid. This letter sent to New York and mailed by ‘‘special post”
on this day and date, April 7, 1891, to London.
April 11, 1891, Secretary Blaine, without informing Sir Julian, violates this agree-
ment of April 7, 1891, as above cited; he gives to the lessees of the Seal Islands (D. O.
Mills, Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, and 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.
Henry W. Evwiorr.
Wasuineton, D. C., May 2, 1912.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 670-672, Apr. 24, 1912.)
538490—14——_11
Mr. StEPHENS. On December 15, 1913, the said Henry W. Elhott
filed with the chairman of this committee a supplementary and com-
plete report and exhibits of the said special agents of the committee
upon the conditions of the fur-seal herd of Alaska and the conduct
of the public business relating thereto, as ordered by the committee.
That report is as follows:
162
A STATEMENT
SUBMITTED IN RE THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA TO THE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, BY HENRY W. ELLIOTT, DECEMBER 15, 1913,
TO SUPPLEMENT AND COMPLETE THE REPORT AND EXHIBITS
OF THE SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UPON
THE CONDITION OF THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA AND
THE CONDUCT OF THE PUBLIC BUSINESS ON THE PRIBILOF
ISLANDS, AS ORDERED BY THE COMMITTEE JUNE 20, 1913
163
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
Wasuineton, D.C., December 15, 1913.
Hon. Joon H. RoTHERMEL,
Chairman Committee on Expenditures
Ln the Department of Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Dear Str: I wish to submit for the information and the use of
your committee a carefully prepared statement of the facts which
bear upon the commercial ruin and near extinction of our fur-seal
herd of Alaska.
I believe that a statement which shall authoritatively cover the
causes of that destruction of this fine public property and the true
relation which the lessees of the seal islands and certain sworn
public officials and others have to that ruin of the same will be of
value to your committee.
I therefore inclose this statement herewith, duly addressed to the
committee and yourself.
Very respectfully, yours, Henry W. EL.iorr.
165
CONTENTS TO STATEMENT SUBMITTED.
Page.
Killing in violation of law on land causes destruction of the herd and loss of
SOOO OO OR tose Wb Ge rreasiirayrys seas oct cen mer apes a Gender Ones cerre 163-178
Salculations whrch prove.that loss. i s.ms2 tac sci ese eee se eee ee 178-182
Records of high official guilty knowledge of this illegal and ruinous killing of
(SCEU Sl Sea SE ae ea ae eae eat ye hien SR RE eee CN eR eae SS BU RE eee Ewes 183-212
Law and regulations which governed and_ now govern that killing of seals. . 213-214
One hundred and twenty-eight thousand yearling seals taken by lessees in
wiolation of Jaw and regulations since 1890_.............-2.--2-2----+----- 215-216
Charles Nagel, Secretary Commerce and Labor, his relation to and guilty
Know ledee. of this’ killing of seals: 2 5ou5 Saset Sots MA Se SR as 217-237
George M. Bowers, United States Commissioner of Fisheries, his relation to and
eullty knowledge of this, killing of:seals..-2 5. 20k ep eee eee 237-254
David Starr Jordan, chairman Advisory Fur Seal Board, his guilty knowledge
Amthingktlbnolol seales. = en ene eee cine ee eee oe eee Mae ecm nina 257-261
H. I. Lembkey, chief special agent, and United States Bureau of Fisheries,
Pilly knowledee of this talline, of seals 2252-52. ete sue we sles nie = 261-280
Isaac Liches and associate lessees (N. A. C. Co.), their guilty promotion of
ROBSGE STIS LES PASS < hose o < = eects Sans ae se ee areca en Tie arte mat a 280-314
Joseph Stanley-Brown, dual agent Government and lessees, guilty knowledge
BspUIRIS IRAN Glos os Soe OB er Te ene cats ae a ete Wee See craie sae SPN Dee a ee ara 314-316.
Experts:
Wigiadhinttls oer spol eoe Hae ee cee COTS OGL CO OOD ROLE OE Joe SCS Be ae Derma 320-324
PCH CORE seesaw oa sioyaecrafas Se eae YS orca aE eM Cia roe eee ae 324-332.
TENA Sev TOV oes SC ESN IST SES Goes CRE Or SL Ny oO eee A a ee 332-358
AMON TENS CIING | apt oy ah OR ote Gam any RACES yA, . Waa misery 358-372)
IDG eA Seah ee a8 9 id ln ee Ee LAR a peilseee cane ity eas an Cay ee eee 372-389:
Ae TT Ke ya aN ee eas Soe PaaS a Sa eet in care ee ie end asec Sra i 390-410
BI OTA iN eee gra ee neg eg Nyasa aS aM fe Ve vate age re eae My oes 411-425
Liebes, Peirce, Townsend, fraud at The Hague, 1902..................-.--- 284-302
Phra Or lessees 1S Oils Een e NE RE ya cae Mee Pn NE SA ee al 209-212
Clark, special agent of Nagel, sent by Nagel, 1909.........--..........-..--- 250
167
STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN RE THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF
ALASKA.
?
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CoMMITTEE: I desire to
submit for your consideration a concise statement of facts, showing
the history and condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and the con-
nection of the officers and stockholders of the North American
Commercial Co., as lessees, and the officials of the United States
Government and others therewith since 1890 to date.
It is first in order to show how and why the fur-seal herd of
Alaska has been commercially destroyed and ruined as an asset of
value to the Government ever since 1890; I will lead by giving you a
brief but carefully studied statement of the reasons why this herd
has been reduced so as to be at the verge of complete extinction
when the act of August 24, 1912, prevented that end.
By order of this committee, a careful survey of the herd was made
by Mr. Gallagher and myself last July. We have given you in our
report of August 31 last an account in detail of its condition.
The condition of this herd as we found it last July on its breeding
rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska, is
one of complete commercial ruin and of near extinction of virile
breeding male life.
Happily the act of August 24, 1912, prevents any repetition of the
deadly killing of young male seals for the next five years on the islands,
and makes it unnecessary to call upon Congress for any further
legislation in the premises until the lapse of this close time thus
provided for.
It now becomes in order to clearly show how and why this herd
of 4,700,000 seals in 1874 has been so managed by our own agents
as to bring it to the pitiful limit of less than 1,500 breeding’ bulls in
1913, as contrasted with 90,000 in 1874—with less than 30,000 non-
breeding seals—yearlings and males, 2, 3, 4, 5, and up to 6 years
old, against 1,250,000 of them in 1874, and less than 80,000 breeding
cows as against 1,633,000 of them in 1874.
It is an easy exhibition of cause which I am to give you, as follows:
I. The fur seal by its law of life breeds but once a year, and then
during one short period of that year only, viz, between July 4 and 25.
Il. This makes its order of life entirely different from cattle, sheep,
horses, and swine, with which it has been erroneously contrasted by
ignorant or scheming “naturalists,” who have at great length
eclared it to be similar, when in fact it is utterly and irreconcilably
different.
Ill. That two weeks of the year (between July 4-25) in which all
of the cows land, give birth to their young (a single pup), and are
impregnated for another 12 months of gestation, is now admitted to
be the “height of the season”’ by every observer who has had several
seasons of personal study of the question on the rookeries. A few
169
“
170 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
seals are born as early as June 16—24—a few are born as late as
August 1-5, annually—but these are the natural exceptions to the
rule of their lives. The fact remains that the breeding of these seals
is all begun and finished practically between July 4-20 annually—. e.,
nine-tenths of it.
IV. This fact determined, then it becomes clear to the investigator
that the breeding males which serve these breeding cows in that short
period, annually, and only then, should be the very finest of the
species, and—
(a) That they should not be overtaxed by having too many cows
in their harems at that period aforesaid, and—
(6) That this natural selection ordered by their law of life, which
enables only the finest of their kind to get into the rookeries as sires,
should never be interfered with by man—
(c) Who himself can not make that selection, as he can of the best
bulls, rams, stallions, and boars for his herds and flocks in domes-
tication.
V. To make this natural selection of the very finest sires for the
herd, these seals are born equal in number, males and females. The
male becomes mature and begins to breed when 6 years old—never
any earlier, and—
(a) The female becomes mature and receives her first impregnation
as a ‘nubile’ on the rookery when she is 2 years old. This—
(b) Brings the female in as a breeder and requiring service four
years ahead of the male; and that—
(c) Seems to make the natural life of the male from 15 to 18 years
and that of the female less, or from 10 to 12 years (reasoning by
analogy).
VI. The breeding males arrive on the rookery grounds from three to
six weeks in advance of the females; their habit is to locate thereon,
at intervals of 7 to 10 feet apart; these locations bemg made by
those bulls which can successfully fight for and hold their location
when obtained, and—
(a) This fighting between the bulls, which is done by them three
to six weeks before the cows come, eliminates all of the weaker or
nerveless bulls before the breeding begins, and—
(b) So secures for the cows only the very finest sires for the race,
without any injury to the females or the pups during the breeding
season, since—
(c) This fighting for those harem stations aforesaid entirely sub-
sides when the cows begin to haul out; and—
(dq) This location of the breeding bulls in a normal and natural
state brings to each bull about 15 or 20 cows to serve, on an average,
throughout the whole rookery (a few bulls will have harems of 40 or
50 and a few will only have 4 or 5, perhaps, but the natural normal
average in 1874 was about 20 cows to a bull on the big rookeries).
VII. Any disturbance or interference with this natural order and
adjustment of these laws of breeding as set forth above will throw
the same out of balance and effect, and thus cause the birth rate
on the rookeries to become less and less annually, as long as this
interference is continued, up to the point of complete extinction of
the species, if it is not discontinued.
With the above statements of fact clearly in mind, when we turn
to view the conditions of the Pribilof fur seal herd. as it was plain to
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 171
see last July, we found that this herd consisted of 80,000 breeding
cows, with only about 750 to 800 breeding bulls in real service on
the rookeries; the reason for that loss of perfect balance was at
once looked up. That one bull should have four times the strain
devolved upon him as a sire, which the natural law of his life orders
him to endure, is the cause of just concern for the future of this
species if it is to continue; for that continuation means more and
more strain added annually until the harems will show 200, 250, yes,
500 to 1,000 cows to the bull, as they have been shown to the greedy
Russian agents in 1896; and, soon thereafter, their herd collapsed.
What was and is the cause of this practical extinction of the virile
male life on the breeding grounds of the Pribilof Islands ?
It is due wholly to the killing of all the young male seals that the
lessees could annually find on the islands, first begun in 1896, in
violation of regulations or the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, and
then continued up to 1904, when the Hitchcock rules of May 1 were
published, but which the lessees nullified completely by 1906, and
continued to do so to the end of their lease, May 1, 1910.
A plain statement of the facts which were given to Mr. F. H.
Hitchcock, chief clerk of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
and upon which he ordered the “Hitchcock rules” of 1904, is of
interest at this point, to wit: On January 8, 1904, I gave him the fol-
lowing analysis of the reason why he must step in at once and check
that close killing of all the young male seals which his agents then
were permitting the lessees to take or face the complete extinction
of the breeding male life on the islands by 1907 or 1908:
On the seal island rookeries of St. Paul and St. George there were
(I wrote thus)—
In 1872-1874 there were some 90,000 breeding bulls and 1,250,000 cows (primipares,
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 1,125,000 pups.
In 1890 this herd was reduced to some 14,000 breeding bulls and about 420,000
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 380,000 pups.
In 1896 this herd was still further reduced to some 5,000 bulls and about 144,000
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 130,000 pups.
In 1903 this herd is reduced to some 2,200 bulls and about 75,000 cows (primipares,
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 68,000 pups.
These 2,200 breeding bulls of 1903 are the survivors of those young males which
were spared in 1890 and by the modus vivendi of 1891-1893, and thus allowed to
grow up to the age of 6 years, and then take their places in 1894, 1895, and 1896 on
the rookeries as 6 and 7 year old “‘seecatchie.’’
In 1894 and in 1895 a few hundred 4-year-olds may have escaped the club on the
killing grounds and thus came in as 6-year-olds in 1896 and 1897.
But in 1896 no 3-year-old seal was passed over the killing grounds which was not
killed in 1897 as a 4-year-old.
And in 1897 and 1898 no 3-year-old seal escaped the killer’s club, except to die on
the killing grounds as a 4-year-old in 1898 and 1899.
And in 1899 no 2-year-old seal was permitted to escape on these grounds unless to
die as a 3-year-old in 1900.
And in 1900 no well-grown yearling seal was spared on these slaughter fields ex-
cept to perish as a 2-year-old in 1901.
And in 1901 every yearling that came ashore was taken, and if a few escaped they
met the club in 1902 sure, as 2-year-olds.
And in 1962 every young male seal that landed was taken, so that out of 22,199,
16,875 were “long’’ and average yearlings, or “‘5-pound’’ or “‘eyeplaster’”’ skins.
In this clear light of the close killing of the young male life as given above, it will
he observed that no young or fresh male blood has been permitted to mature and
reach the breeding grounds since 1896.
The average life of a breeding bull is from 15 to 18 years; he does not keep his
place longer for gocd and obvious reasons. The youngest bulls to-day upon that
172 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
breeding ground are not less than 12 years old—most of them older. They are now
rapidly dying of old age—witness the following:
An official report in 1902 declares that these breeding bulls had decreased in num-
ber from 1901 to the end of 1902 at least 25 per cent. |
An official report in 1903 again declares a decrease from 1902 to the end of this
season (1903) of 17 per cent; 42 per cent since 1901,
The close of the season of 1904 will show at least 20 per cent reduction again; and
in 1905 again 20 per cent at least, to entirely cease by 1907 unless steps are taken at
once to stop the run on this life by land (and sea killing) clubbing in 1904 of the
choice young male seals, yearlings and upward, to the end of the season of 1906—
stop it entirely.
These facts of biological truth and improper violation of license to
kill on the islands, as above, were bitterly disputed by Dr. David
Starr Jordan and his ‘‘scientists,’’ who, as hi associates of the Jordan-
Thompson Commission in 1896-1898, all united in denying them. But
Mr. Hitchcock was impressed with the truth and sense of my state-
ment, and issued the orders, or “‘ Hitchcock rules,” which checked up
that close killing I complained of, May 1, 1904.
Then what happened? On the 26th of October, 1905, the very
men who, in 1904, had united with Dr. Jordan and his “scientists,”
Stejneger, Lucas, and Townsend, confessed in an elaborate report
that I was right—that these regulations of Hitchcock’s order had
been made just in time to save the breeding hfe of the rookeries from
ruin at the hands of the lessees. Witness the following:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SEGRETARY,
Washington, October 26, 1905.
Srr: I have the honor to submit the following report on the administration of affairs
on the seal islands of Alaska during the year ended August, 1905:
There were so few bulls on certain rookeries on St. Paul Island this summer that,
by reason of their scarcity, the harems were broken up before the usual period and
bachelors were able to haul among the cows.
This occurred at a date when these young seals should have been excluded from
the breeding grounds by vigilant bulls, and then forced to haul up, if they desired
to haul at all, only on the bachelor’s hauling ground.
This condition, in our opinion, is due to the scarcity of breeding males on the rook-
eries generally, and to their being so taxed in special localities with the service of the
cows that they were unable or unwilling to drive out the bachelors. Had idle bulls
been sufficiently numerous this condition would not have occurred.
* * * * * * *
A stop was made at Polovina on our way from Northeast Point on the 21st, and
Messrs. Judge and Redpath and myself visited that 1ookery. We were not able to
verify our assumption with regard to this rookery. By reason of the flatness of the
approach to it, only the rearmost harems cou!d be inspected, and those only with
caution, lest the cows be stampeded. While we found six 2-year old bachelors in
two small harems at the rear, we found also the harem formations to be much better
preserved than at Hutchinson Hill. The bulls seemed active in preventing the
escape of the cows and in rounding them up into their harems.
The fact, however, remains that only 3 idle bulls were found on this rookery at the
height of the season. That the bulls present with cows were still able to maintain
their harems on the 21st is mote a tribute to their vitality than proof that enough
adult males were present.
* * * * * * *
As I was taking photographs of the rookeries, I went ahead to make the necessary
exposures before the formation of the cows should be disturbed by the counting of
the harems. Mr. Judge followed with two natives and made the count. He stated
that the bulls were practically docile and that no trouble was experienced in pene-
trating the mass of seals. He stated, also, that in his opinion the bulls were taxed to
such an extent as to have virtually lost control of the breeding grounds, and that this
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 173
was the reason for their unusual amiability. He noted also that a great proportion of
the supposed cows scattered about were bachelors.
* * * * * * *
The result of these regulations can not be felt before 1907, as has in effect been stated.
During the interval which must elapse before that time a steady decrease in bulls will
be encountered. The closest killing on land occurred during the seasons of 1902 and
1903. In the latter season the lessees released from the drives on St. Paul only 983
small seals. This practical annihilation of bachelors for this year will be felt on the
rookeries four years thereafter, or in 1907.
* * * * * * *
LIMIT TO PROCREATIVE POWER OF BULLS.
Much has been said of the wonderful procreative power of bulls, and the theory has
been advanced that a bull can serve without discomfort as many cows as he is able to
get and hold.
Our experience this summer has convinced us that there is a limit to a bull’s capacity
and that the bulls on the rookeries at the height of the season had come nearer to
reaching it than ever before to our knowledge. When it was possible on July 13 to
penetrate the mass of breeding seals on the Reef, and on July 14 that. on Zapadni,
meeting with no more opposition than could be met successfully by two men armed
with light poles, it must be believed that the bulls at these places were taxed to such
a limit as to be shorn of most of their aggressiveness. On July 16 Mr. Judge with two
men went through the mass under Hutchinson Hill on the plateau near the shore line,
and experienced but little trouble. To have done this five years ago with the same
mass would have been impossible.
* ¥ * * * * *
The present scarcity of bulls is attributable directly to close killing on land, from
which not enough bachelors were allowed to escape from the killing fields to maintain
the requisite proportion of bulls.
For the last two years, however, regulations have heen in force on the islands as the
result of which a considerable number of bachelors are exempted from killing and
allowed to escape. The animals thus saved are not old enough to appear upon the
rookeries. It will be necessary for two more years to elapse before the animals may be
counted upon. From that time, however, with the continuance of the regulations,
it is believed that an ample supply of bulls will be present.
PRESENT REGULATIONS SHOULD BE CONTINUED.
Since it appears that a scarcity of bulls is threatened on the islands, and, in fact,
has occurred actually on several of the rookery spaces on St. Paul, any change in the
present regulations looking to a lessening of the restrictions placed on killing on the
islands would be wholly unwise.
+ * * * * * *
Respectfully,
W. I. LemBxey,
Agent in Charge Seal Islands,
The SecrETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.
So much for Mr. Lembkey in 1905: Did he continue these regu-
lations in 1906, which he says above are absolutely necessary to be
so continued? No! I had the following to say to your committee
July 30, 1912, to wit:
Now, what has become of that ‘‘64-pound ” 3-year-old limit by which he has sworn
he “‘saved the 3-year-olds” in June and July, to be again ‘‘saved” by him as such in
the autumn following by having this maximum limit of ‘‘64 pounds” put on the
taking of any “‘food skins”? Why, they are all killed.
Mr. Mappen. How many people are there on the islands?
Mr. Exziorr. About 300; about 250 now. Why, those 3-year-olds so saved are
all killed later in the season, and so killed as being under the limit of ‘‘84 pounds”!
He thus stupidly confesses to you, as above quoted, that he has nullified the very
rules of the department that he was and is sworn to obey and enforce.
The Hitchcock rules ordered a ‘‘permanent mark” to be put upon these reserved
seals, ‘“and under no circumstances are they to be taken,” etc. Why was it not
done? The answer is easy. The lessees wanted those skins, and they manipulated
Lembkey as above—they got them.
174 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
How was that manipulation by Lembkey, in turn, done, so as to
get those ‘‘reserved”’ seals.
deceit:
I submit the following exposé of the
THE LESSEES SUBORN LEMBKEY AND THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, AND
THEN SECURE ALL OF THE ‘‘RESERVED”’ OR ‘‘SPARED”’ SEALS, IN
SWORN STATEMENTS OF THE LATTER.
VIOLATION OF THE
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
Lembkey declares that a 64-
pound limit to feod skins is or-
dered by the bureau, and that
saves the ‘‘reserved”’ seals from
subsequent killing by the lessees.
Mr. Extrotr. Now, Mr. Chairman, in
the matter of the nullification of the
Hitchcock rules, with this evidence duly
considered by your committee of the
illegal killing of those yearlings seals in
1910 (and that evidence of this guilt ap-
lies to every season’s work on the Pribi-
of Islands ever since 1890 down to May
1, 1910), I desire to present the following
testimony, which declares that ever since
May 1, 1904, when the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules”
were first ordered by the Department of
Commerce and Labor, those rules have
been systematically and flagrantly vio-
lated by the agents of this department
who were specially sworn to obey and
enforce them.
On February 4, 1911, Chief Special
Agent Lembkey was introduced by
Secretary Charles Nagel to the United
States Senate Committee on Conserva-
tion of National Resources, and during
his examination by that committee he
made the following statement, to wit, on
age 14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959,
ebruary 4, 1911, Committee on Con-
servation of National Resources):
Dr. Hornapay. How many “‘short 2-
year-olds” were killed last year?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not understand
your term. No seals under 2 years old,
to my knowledge, were killed.
Dr. Hornnapay. What would be the
age of the smallest yearlings taken?
Mr. Lempxey. Two-year-olds rarely, if
any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday,
that a great difference of opinion exists
between Mr. Elliott and the remaining
eople who understand this situation.
here is a great gulf between their
opinions, and it can never be reconciled
on the question of the weights of skins of
2-year-olds.
Prof. Exuiorr. I will present my in-
formation in a moment.
Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight
is what?
Mr. LemBKeEy. Five pounds. During
food drives made by the natives, when
But the official imstructions of
the bureau declare that that 64-
pound limit has been raised to
8$ pounds, and that Lembkey
has killed all seals having skins
under that limit.
[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]
Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals —No seals
shall be killed having skin weighing less
than 5 pounds nor more than 84 pounds.
Skins weighing mroe than 84 pounds shall
not be shipped from the islands, but shall
be held there subject to such instructions
as may be furnished you hereafter by the
department. Skins weighing less than
5 pounds shall not be shipped from the
islands, unless, in your judgment, the
number thereof is so small as to justify
the belief that they have been taken only
through unavoidable accident, mistake,
or error in judgment.
Sec. 10. Seals for food —The number of
seals to be killed by the natives for food
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906,
shall not exceed 1,700 on the island of
St. Paul and 500 on the island of St.
George, subject to the same limitations
and restrictions as apply to the killing
of seals by the company for the quota.
Care should be taken that no branded
seals be killed in the drives for food.
{Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.)
Identical with instructions of 1906.
[Instructions issued Apr. 1, 1908.]
Identical with instructions of 1907.
[Instructions issued Mar. 27, 1909.]
Sec. 10. Seals for food.—Identical with
instructions for 1906, 1907, and 1908, ex-
cept in addition is added ‘‘The maximum
weight for food skins shall not exceed 7
pounds.”’
(Instructions issued May 9, 1910.]
Sec. 11. Seals for food.—Driving for na-
tives’ food should not begin before Octo-
ber 20, and care should be exercised at
that date that the skins of seals killed be
no ‘‘stagey” to a degree that would im-
pair the commercial value of the skin.
,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 175
the seals killed are limited to 64 pounds,
in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds
branded during the summer, you under-
stand the natives do kill down a little
more closely than our regulations allow,
for the reason that they need the meat,
and since they have to exclude all these
fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they go for
the little fellows a little more closely.
The CHAIRMAN. How many seals were
killed last year for food by the natives?
Mr. Lempxey. The limit was 2,500.
Speaking offhand, I think about 2,300
were killed.
Q. Were any females killed?—A. No,
sir; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated,
I carefully interrogated these two gentle-
men who had charge of this killing, and
they stated that to their knowledge no
female was killed.
Q. What class of males were killed by
by the natives for food?—A. Under 64
pounds
(Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July 25, 1912,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
Lembkey swears that he an-
nually reserves from slaughter
1,000 3.year old male seals, be-
fore any killing is done, for the
season in June.
Mr. Lempxey. Before any killing was
done thissummer, as has been the practice
for some years past following the bureau’s
instructions, 1,000 of the choicest 3-year-
olds appearing in the first drives of the
season were reserved for future breeders
and marked by shearing their heads, so as
to render their subsequent recognition
during the season an easy matter. These
seals, thus marked, were immune from
clubbing and were not killed. These
3-year-old seals the following year became
4-year-olds, the killing of which class in
general is prohibited. Only after the
1,000 3-year-olds, known as the breeding
reserve, is secured and marked does the
killing of seals for skins begin. The kill-
ing is confined only to the 2 and 3-year-
old immature males not required for pur-
poses of reproduction. To obtain these,
the breeding rookeries are not disturbed,
but the bachelors hauling grounds on
either island were driven every fifth or
sixth day if seals were found thereon in
sufficient numbers to justify driving.
The killing season begins on July 1 and
ends July 31, but one drive is always
made subsequently on August 10 to fur-
nish the natives with fresh meat during a
portion of the so-called ‘“‘stagey” season .
(when the seals shed their hair), which
begins August 10 and ends October 20,
Drives for food should be made not oftener
than the needs of the natives in that re-
spect require. Drives for food on rookeries
remote from the villages should not be
made unless the carcasses actually are
necessary for natives’ food or for food for
foxes, or for some other sound reason,
and in any event, care should be taken
to preserve for future use the carcasses of
such seals as are not immediately d*s-
posed of. The number of seals to be
killed for natives’ food for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1910, should not ex-
ceed 1,700 on St. Paul and 500 on St.
George. No female seal or seal having a
skin weighing under 5 pounds or more
than 7 pounds shall be killed during the
so-called ‘‘food - killing season.’’ Care
shall be taken that no reserved or marked
bachelors be killed in the drives for food
or at any other time.
[Instructions issued Mar. 31, 1911.]
Identical with instructions of 1910.
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 483-486, April,
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
But Clark reports that these
reserved seals of June are all killed
as food seals in October following
or in the following spring.
3. The reserve of bachelors.—Beginning
with the season of 1904, there has been set
aside each spring a special breeding re-
serve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years
of age. These animals have been marked
by clipping the head with sheep shears,
giving them a whitish mark readily dis-
tinguishing them to the clubbers. They
are carefully exempted on the killing
field and released.
This method of creating a breeding re-
serve seems open to considerable criti-
cism, and has apparently been only mod-
erately successful. The mark put upon
the animal is a temporary one. The fur
is replaced during the fall and winter, and
the following spring the marked seals can
not be recognized. The animals being 2
and 3 years of age are still killable the
next season, the 2-year-olds in fact the
second season. A new lot of 2,000 is
clipped the next season, and these are
carefully exempted, but, except in so far
as animals of the previous season’s mark-
ing are reclipped, they have no protection
the second season, and without doubt are
killed.
Tf such is not the case, it is difficult to
understand what becomes of them. The
annual reservation from 1904 to 1907, both
seasons included, would aggregate 8,000
animals. These animals would be of ages
ranging from 8 to 5 years thisseason. The
176 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
and during which no killing is done.—
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 362, 363, Feb. 29,
1912. House Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
only animals present in 1909 which could
have resulted from this reservation were
the 513 idle and half bulls. Even if we
assume that they have in the meantime
Eber) replaced the entire stock of breeding bulls,
this would account for only 1,900 of them,
and the active bulls were for the most
part of a distinctly older class.—(Report
G. A. Clark to Secretary Nagel, Sept. 30,
1909, p. 847, Appendix A, House Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.)
Were these regulations continued? No. Assoon as Mr. Hitchcock
was promoted to the Postmaster General’s office in 1905 a person
named EK. W. Sims, “‘solicitor’”’ of the department, was put in charge
of the fur-seal business, and then this same Mr. Lembkey was pre-
vailed upon to nullify the ‘‘Hitchcock rules,” so that in 1906 the
lessees secured every young male seal that hauled out, over, and
under 1 year of age and upward.
This close killing was continued on the islands up to the passage of
the act of August 24, 1912, which stops it completely for five years.
And this close killing since 1896, when first ordered, has been done
in violation of the regulations forbidding it, up to date, and is re-
sponsible for this wreck of the herd as we find it to-day.
What is the loss which the public Treasury has suffered since 1896
by reason of that violation of law and regulations then and since (. e.,
reduced to a matter of dollars and cents)? I answer as follows:
I. This excessive close killing of the young males has so disturbed
the balance of natural order and the system of the breeding rookeries
that instead of having a herd of 1,000,000 seals on them to-day we
have only 190,555.
II. Had it not been for the work of the pelagic sealer since 1896
to December 15, 1911, the harems on the islands to-day would be at
the ratio of 250 to 500 cows (yes, even 1,000) to 1 bull, and that
would have fairly destroyed the species by 1907-1909.
Ill. Therefore this killing so close and in violation of the regula-
tions since 1896 to date has cost us the loss of over 120,000 seals taken
in flagrant, criminal trespass by the lessees and in violation of their
contract; but it has also cost us vastly more in the loss of the earning
power of this herd, which should have been, and would have been,
properly conserved had it not been for the greedy interference of
these private interests when foreign governments were approached
with negotiations for the elimination of pelagic sealing and all private
interests in the killing of seals on land and in the sea.
IV. The sum total of loss actually suffered by the public Treasury
through this combination between the lessees and our own agents
and officials may be summed up fairly as follows, to wit:
To loss of 120,000 ‘‘yearlings,”’ (or ‘‘eyeplaster” skins), at $30.........---
To loss of annual earnings of a fully restored herd (as it would have been
had it not been for interference of lessees in 1890-91), of 4,700,000 seals
from 1897 to 1913—16 years’ output of 60,000 prime skins annually......
$3, 600, 000
48, 000, 000
Total loss cciooc bag Wa acess. 358 et Shee eee eee 51, 600, 000
Or, in short, and to be nearly exact, we have lost $3,600,000 by
criminal trespass of lessees since 1896, and fully $48,000,000 by
improper interference of lessees and others with negotiations which,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 177
but for them, would have been successfully consummated in 1891-92,
and the herd fully restored by 1897.
The following illustration of loss suffered on the rookeries and the
hauling grounds of St. Paul Island holds good for the smaller sister
island of St. George:
The acreage of the breeding rookeries on St. Paul Island in 1872-
1874, when there were 1,500,000 breeding cows and 90,000 bulls
thereon, was 144 acres.
The acreage of the hauling grounds of St. Paul Island in 1872-
1874, when ‘at least 1 ,500,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old
males were out on them intermittently ’ during ‘the season, was
3,200 acres.
In 1890 this acreage of the breeding rookeries was reduced to
one-third of 1874, or to 46 acres.
In 1890 the hauling grounds of 1872-1874 were practically aban-
doned, because there were less than 100,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and
6 year old males out on them. The entire area then visited by the
holluschickie was not more than one-tenth of the breeding grounds
in 1890, or 5 acres.
In 1913 this acreage of the breeding seals had decreased from its
form in 1890 at least five-sixths, or to 74 acres.
In 1913 the hauling erounds of 1890 were about half the same
area as then, with less than 40,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year
old males, or to 3 acres.
The object in view which has stimulated this destruction, as above
shown, is in turn exposed to view, as follows:
Statement of the net profits of the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska from 1870 to 1910,
inclusive. From items gathered during the seasons of 1872-78, 1874, 1876, 1890, to
date. July 29, 1910, by Henry W. Elhott.
PROFITS OF FIRST LESSEES, ALASKA COMMERCIAL CO., OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.
(First lease.)
1870-1890 (20 years): Total catch, 1,856,224 seals; of these when
taken during the seasons of 1870-1878, 1884, and 1885, inclusive,
the catches “aggregated 969,374 seals; the average price per skin
realized in London for them was nearly $11.20 per skin, or. .: 2... $10, 746, 989. 80
The balance when taken during the seasons of 1879-1883 and 1886-
1889, the catches aggregated 886,850 seals; the average price realized
in London for them was nearly $18.50 er Skin OT see yes wel: 16, 407, 225. 00
PSROwIner a cross sim totalvot: VIS Iss: Me es A AE he. 27, 153, 514. 80
From this gross sum total the cost of each skin at $4.524 as incurred
by the lessees for tax, rental, and other charges incidental, must
esMiEAChed Otte slit Ole eee ee een eee See nine 8, 399, 603. 60
Weclaniniciamict prontisiess2 25 neo sia eke ele Pci 18, 753, 911. 20
PROFITS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FROM THIS WORK OF THE LESSEES, AS
ABOVE STATED.
Gross revenue derived from said catch of 1,856,224 seals, each skin
paying a tax of $3.17 (tax, rental, and bonus)... ..-- $5, 894, 230. 08
Less cost of supervision, patrol, and protection of the seal herds ‘from
1889-1890, 21 years, inclusive, was an average of $30,000, or in round
numbers a sum total of............- A ater sine Me. MeN a 630, 000. 00
Declaring a net profit to the Government of............------ 5, 264, 230. 08
53490—_14—__12
i178 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
PROFITS OF THE NORTH AMERIACN COMMERCIAL CO., OF SAN FRANCISCO.
(Second lease.)
1890-1910 (20 years): Total catch, 343,365 seals. With the exception of the sea-
sons of 1894-1898, inclusive, the average price has been $28 per skin; the highest
average was in 1890, when it went to $36.50 (due to all ‘‘prime skins”), ‘and the low-
est was in iG when it. fell to $15.50; the last sale, 1909, was $30 and made up of
“small pup” or “‘eyeplaster” skins chiefly.
This record : the second lease declares that its aggregated catch of
343,365 skins sold in London for........... ..- $9, 614, 222.00
From this gross sum total the cost of each skin at $13.45 for tax, ‘rental,
and other incidental charges must be subtracted, or the sum of. yas 4, 637, 646. 00
Declaring,a met profit,Ols. soa-ecee 3. ase core oe ee oe eee 4, 976, 574. 00
Profit of the United States Government from this work of the lessees
as stated above, derived from said catch of 343,365 seals, each skin
paying a tax, rental, and bonus of $10.22........... -- 3,509, 190.30
‘Less cost of patrol, supervision, and protection of this seal herd from
1889 to May 1, 1910, 20 years, at an average cost from start to finish of
‘$250,000 annually a SANEE DS Bee Sema ALONG ed) Bho 2 4 eA Ce IE AAS Lh od 5, 000, 000. 00
Meelaring a. netrlOss Ok 12s ce eee eee 1, 491, 809. 70
This in brief is the loss fairly and conservatively stated, which the
Public Treasury has suffered hy the mismanagement of our fur seal
herd of Alaska since 1890-91 to date:
I have this to say anent that remarkable combination which has
been made in Washington, on the seal islands, and elsewhere to loot
and ruin this fine public property.
Whenever facts were courteously given to Secretary Nagel and his
associates, these men either denounced the action as an “‘imperti-
nence”’ and “‘meddlesome” or ignored them.
Of course this is the natural result of a partnership between the
Government and private business interests. Such a partnership is a
close corporation, into which no one else has a right to intrude.
To oppose the wishes of this combination, to question the facts
upon which it relies, to suggest that any others, or the people have
any rights that ought to be “considered, even to seek for information
outside this circle of the interests involved by the lease, all this was
very “‘tiresome” and “impertinent.”
_ The men on the inside, Liebes, Mills, Jordan, Elkins, Clark, Lemb-
key, Bowers, et al., had made up their minds that certain things must
be true, and all they wanted was that “evidence” which ‘ proved”’
their theory; they furnished the ‘“ evidence.”
They did not want the truth as it actually exists, but the “truth”
only in so far as it conformed to their preconceived ideas of what it
should be.
With the foregoing statements carefully made, I now desire to
submit the several items of fact which bear directly on the effect of
killing yearling seals as has been done by the lessees and our own
agents and others, upon the life of the fur-seal herd, and this show-
ing I arrange as
EXHIBIT I.
In Exhibit I, following, are the itemized lists of more than 120,000
yearling seals which have been taken by the lessees since 1896, on
the Pribilof Islands, in criminal trespass.
The sole object of prohibiting the killing of yearlings by law and
regulations was and is to prevent the killing of female seals, since
the sex of seals can not be told apart when as yearlings they haul
cut upen the islands. The yearling female is precisely cf the same
size, shape, and outward appearance and behavior, from every point
ef view, as is the male yearling. Unless she is caught and ex-
amined by cur hand her sex can not be told truly by us or by any
human being—only guessed wildly.
Therefore, as it is utterly impracticable to capture, examine, and
separate the male and female yearlings on the hauling grounds or
killing grounds, the killing of them as a class has been prohibited
and wisely ordered, since this class is easily reecgnized cn the slaugh-
tering field.
In spite of this prehibition, when the numbers cf 2 and 3 year
old male seals as secured ran down year after year to zero, the lessees
in erder to get the full number allowed them of 2 and 3 year old seals,
entered into a combination with the agents of the Government
and slaughtered the yearlings by the tens of thousands; but. falsi-
fied that work to the Gevernment, declaring that no seals had been
taken under 2 years of age since 1896. The details of this malfea-
sance and fraud on the part of the Government agents and the lessees
are fully given in Exhibit II! (pcsted).
In order that an adequate idea may be fcrmed of what the loss
to the herd is when female yearlings are killed (and half of the 120,000
yearlings taken since 1896 were females), the following table of
increase which 4,500 slaughtered yearling cows in 1896 would have
brought to the herd is given, to wit:
Table showing the natural increase of 4,500 yearling cows from 1896 to 1909 if they had
been suffered to live undisturbed on the Pribilof rookeries.
F F Two- Three- Four-
Year. Breeding | Pups. | Yearling pearing year-old | year-old | year-old Remarks.
Cows a cows. | Males. | males. | males. | males
| —
TiS | Ue Ne ike | peep were APOC ce meee enc aera acwaneollt Me min.
LEST. Lol ep Wile. Aa i ee gD ied 7 ame 2 ka a Ve a ee |e
1398 4,327 ZI D0 ee ee Ne Lape a eee ps Site (Ceres epee ene Deena PUT eM eS
1899 4241| 4,241 1,031 LOOSE te ESN SEN a AN LAME MSN SN
1900 5, 238 4,157 1,001 DAO es cE OOO Nee sae Al a ahah
1901 6, 106 5, 136 1,010 1,010 1,000 OOO eee eels
1902....| 6,997| 5,984 1, 250 1, 250 1,000 1;000 840
IIS 55 5: 8,143 | 6, 859 1, 450 1, 450 1,350 980 850 | The 5-year and 6-year
1904... 9,477 | 7, 981 1,700 1, 700 1, 650 1, 294 800 old bulls are not car-
1905.22: 11,073 9,369 1,990 1,990 1, 800 1, 500 1,000 ried in this table,
1906....| 12,846 | 10,851 2,342 2,342 2, 250 1, 760 1,200 | which is to express
1907....| 14,912 | 12,590 2,700 2,700 2,600 2,200 1, 500 the loss in value of
1908....| 17,324} 14,614 3,000 3,000 2,850 2,600 2,000 commercial skins; all
1909....| 20,225 16,978 3, 600 3, 600 2,940 2,750 2/250 | male skins over 4
| years have no real
| commercial value.
J
Wig
~
180 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The above exhibit declares that by 1909, or in 12 years’ time from
their initial or first impregnation, July, 1897, these 4,500 yearling
cows of July, 1896, would have increased five fold—to 20,225 breeding
adult females and to 16,978 pups born July, 1909, to 3,600 yearling
cows of 1909 to 3,600 yearling bulls of 1909, to 2,940 2 year old bulls
of 1909, to 2,750 3. year-old bulls of 1909, and to 2,250 4-year-old bulls
of 1909, being the increase of 4,500 yearling cows to 52,343 seals in
12 years—from 1897 to 1909.
When Lembkey and the lessees killed yearlings, they knew that
they were females after they had killed them and that they could
not tell the sex until after they had killed them. In his report, 1904,
page 55, Appendix A, Lembkey says: ‘One yearling was killed by
me during the summer to determine the weight of that class of skins.
The entire animal—a female .* * * .” Again in his report
he tells us that the yearling females are in the drives with the yearling
males, and that he killed one to ascertain its weight and sex (p. 77,
Appendix A), to wit: ‘On July 1, there were three yeurling 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
skins"; It was found to be a female =) ste tr
Dr. Jordan also knew that the yeariings 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. Pauzs Istanp,
Saturday, August 1, 1896.
Dr. Jordan, assisted by the natives * * * drove up part of one and two year old
seals from the Reef Rookery: they were examined with a view to determining whether
or not yearling seals were to be found among these young bachelors. It is now con-
ceded that yearling females do not haul out on the rookeries but among the hollus-
chickie.”’ (Official Journal Government Agent, St. Pauls Island, Alaska, p. 465.)
These 128,000 yearlings which were taken by ‘“‘criminal trespass”
between 1890-1909 were so taken in violation of law and regulations
and by collusion with certain public agents, who had guilty knowledge
of this work.
One-half of this number of yearlings by the natural law of their
birth were female seals, which were to become nubile mother seals
one year later, and which as such would each live from 10 to 12 years,
bearing annually one pup during that period of their lives.
Therefore this killimg by criminal trespass and in guilty knowledge
of these 60,000 yearling cows has cost the Government the full value
of that annual increment to the seal herd which those cow seals would
have made since 1896, plus that increase in turn which their offspring
would have made, and so on in turn annually up to the season of 1912.
Upon a basis of calculating that particular loss from this single
killing of those 4,500 yearling cows in 1896, for example, thus suffered
by the Public Treasury, we find that this loss from a systematic killing
of yearlings which was begun by the lessees, in violation of the Car-
lisle rules of May 14, 1896, in June-July, 1896 (and continued by them
up to the end of their lease in 1909), to be fairly stated as follows:
We start with 4,500 yearling cows which were killed in 1896; in
1897, if not so killed, they would have returned less 2 per cent of that
number from natural death rate, or as 4,415 two-year-old cows; they go
directly to the breeding grounds and are there impregnated for the
first time as ‘ nubiles.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 181
In 1898 they return again as 3-year-old cows, or “‘primipares,’’
less 2 per cent of their number from natural death rate, or 4,327 new
cows, and each one bears one pup. They are again served and leave.
In 1899 they return again, less 2 per cent from natural death rate,
or as 4,241 ‘“multipares,” and bear their pups—4,241 of them. In
the meantime the 4,327 pups born in 1898 have returned to the haul-
ing grounds as “‘ yearlings,” less 50 per cent of their number, or 2,163
of them.
In 1900 these cows return again, less 2 per cent natural death rate
or 4,157 of them, and bear 4,157 pups; their number is now increased
by the ‘‘nubiles,” or their own daughters, which come out with them
as 2-year-old cows from the yearlings of 1899, or 1,000 ‘‘nubiles,”
making 5,238 cows as breeders this year.
Tn 1901 these cows return exactly as in 1900, bear their pups, and
are again increased in numbers by the ‘‘nubiles,’’ or ‘‘yearlings,”’ of
1900, making 6,106 cows as breeders this year; in the meantime the
4,327 pups born in 1898 have returned, less 50 per cent of their num-
ber in 1899, as 2,163 ‘‘yearlings,”’ and in 1900 these “‘yearlings’’ have
returned, less 2 per cent of their number from natural death rate, as
2-year-olds; one-half of them being females are ‘‘nubiles”’ (1,030 of
them), and have gone upon the breeding grounds, never to be on the
hauling grounds again, with the young males.
The foregoing table, showing the annual increase of those 4,500
yearling cows if not disturbed by man on the islands and in the sea,
declares the fact that from 1896 to 1909 that that single killing of
4,500 yearling cows in 1896, in violation of the Carlisle rules, actually
caused the loss of 20,225 adult female seals and 20,000 2-year-old
male seals from the herd’s total life.
Upon this basis of fact, in calculating the actual loss to the Public
Treasury from the effect of taking 60,000 yearling cows from the
Pribilof Island seal herd between 1890-1909, in criminal trespass by
the lessees, it appears that—
I. That that killing of 60,000 yearling cows has had the full effect
of taking 200,000 choice 2-year-old male seals from the Pribilof herd
between 1890-1909, and it has also destroyed 200,225 adult breeding
cow seals, or, summed up—
II. A property loss of 400,000 seals; the value of their skins is not
less than $20,000,000, to say nothing about the loss of the annual
earning capacity. Then Elliott having charged the killing of these
young yearling seals, males and females alike, Lembkey declared that
it could not be so, since all the killing was done under his direction by
the natives, who never made any mistake about the age of seals when
they were killing them. Lembkey testified, January 25, 1907, to the
Ways and Means Committee (MS. Notes, Hearing on Fur Seals, p. 58):
Mr. Lempxey. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the clubbers on the islands are
expert in their business and they can determine the weight of a skin on a live seal to
within a fraction of a pound.
. GROSVENOR. That’s all I wanted to know.
Mr. Lempxey. They also know the age of a seal from his appearance.
The seal island natives, in a sworn statement made to the agents
of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
Commerce, on St. Pauls Island, July 24, 1913, declared that they not
only knew seals by ages, but that when they killed them they knew
182 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
it then, and that in 1896 they first began to kill yearling seals for the
lessees under the orders of the lessees and the Government agents.
(See Exhibit D, Report Special Agents, House Committee on Ex-
penditures in the Department of Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913.)
The following proof is submitted that the pups are born equal in
number as to sex, and that brings them as ‘‘yearlings” onto the
islands males and females alike entirely as to numbers, outward
shape, coats, size, and weights, as seen when driven and killed:
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
Friday, June 2, 1911.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.
Mr. Exxiorr. Now, Mr. Chairman, how do we know that yearlings are females and
males equal in sex? How do we know, when we kill yearlings, that we are apt to kill
as many females as males without examining them? How do we prove it? I prove
it in this way first, and it has been affirmed even by this ‘‘advisory board.’’ I said
in 1881, in my official monograph, that from my calculations, in round numbers, a
m. lion pups are born every year on these islands.
Mr. McGuire. When was this?
Mr. Extriorr, In 1874 that I prepared it, but 1t was published officially in 1881.
They have been carefully elaborated by the Government. That a million pups are
born every year on these islands, and of this million one-half are males. How did I
know that? In November, 1872, I stood over a killing of these pups, which were then
44 to 5 months old, which was allowed by the Treasury Department for ‘‘native’s
food” [and that has been allowed for some time by the Russians], and just before these
pups were departing for the winter, and the solitude of winter was to come over the
islands, there being no birds, or fish, or anything, the natives wanted some choice
food to hang up, some meat, and as the pups are the sweetest and most toothsome
seal meat, they naturally desired pup meat. So they killed in the autumn, under my
eyes, several squads, altogether some 10,000 pups; but I tallied 9,000 pups between
November 15 and November 25, 1872, at St. Pauls village. of which 4,800 were males.
The ‘‘advisory board,’’ represented by Mr. F. A. Lucas, in 1897, addressed me a note
saying:
“Dear Mr. Exvtiorr: Can you give me the exact number of pups you counted for
sex and the proportion of males and females? Looking over my own notes makes
me wish to quote you exactly.
‘cl. Ay Lueake}
I sent him this memorandum:
[Memorandum for Lucas.]
‘‘Nine thousand pups driven November 15-25, 1872, 1,670 tallied by myself, 855
of which were males; the rest tallied by Church; average weight 39 pounds; some
as high as 50 pounds and some as low as 28 pounds.”’
Then I received another note from Mr. Lucas, as fol.ows:
“Dear Mr. Exxiorr: Your figures on pups came in finely and make it certain that
there is a smal] preponderance of males; our figures were, males, 388; females, 362—
a total of 750, not far from yours.
“FA eee”
That was a pretty close tally; you see I was right, and that I knew what I was about.
I also penned this memorandum, which was made on that pup-weighing day:
“Sr. Paut IsLann, BerInG SEA,
“* November 20, 1872.
‘‘A pup, average weight of 4,800 fur-seal pups, as tallied November 20, 1872, deter-
mined on the killing grounds, average gross weight 39 pounds, thus: Clean skin,
2 pounds 11 ounces; all the blubber, 14 pounds; tendons, flesh, and flippers, 14
pounds and 5 ounces; bones and intestines, 7 pounds and 8 ounces—a total of 38
pounds and 8 ounces—”’
Or a weight of practically 39 pounds for a pup that was 43 to 5 monthsold. (Hear-
ing No. 1, pp. 25, 26.)
EXHIBIT II. AN EXHIBIT OF THE FACTS WHICH SHOW US
THE SOLE FIRST CAUSE OF THAT COMMERCIAL RUIN OF
OUR FUR-SEAL HERD WHICH WE NOW OBSERVE ON THE
PRIBILOF ISLANDS.
If it were not for these records elaborately and systematically made
on those desolate hauling grounds, which I published in 1874 and 1890,
it would be fairly impossible to get an adequate idea of what an im-
mense herd of fur aaa was in existence at the time and when we took
possession of Alaska in 1867.
Then, when that idea is grasped, and it is made clear that ever since
1857, up to the hour of 1867 when the herd became ours, this wild
life had remained at about a steady annual number of 4,700,000 seals
of all classes, we ask, What have we done to reduce it, so by this year
St 1913, all that we find surviving of it are only 190,555 seals of all
classes ?
Why did we lose this herd, when the. Russians easily kept it from
1857 to 1867 in that fine form and number ?
The answer is made easy in the light of the following facts:
I. It is a fact of indisputable record, that the Russians never killed
or disturbed the female seals on the rookeries of St. Paul and St.
George Island, from start to finish of their possession of them.
II. Itis a fact of indisputable record, that from 1786-87 up to 1800
the Russians annually took from 120,000 to 60,000 young male, and.
yearling seals from these hauling grounds; and 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.
III. It is a fact of indisputable record that the Russians, beginning
in 1800 with an annual catch of 40,000 young male seals and year-
lings, by 1817 had the greatest difficulty in getting that number then;
and notes of protest against the killing on the islands were sent to.
Sitka by the caretaker, Kazean Shaishnikov, of St. Pauls Island,
urging the governor of the R. A. Co. to rest the seals:from killing for
a term of years. No pelagic sealing was known to the Russians
during this period of any kind.
TV. It is a fact of indisputable record that while the protest of
Shaishnikov was noticed favorably by the governor, yet the direc-
tors of the R. A. Co. at St. Petersburg did not consent; that they
renewed their orders to kill and sent one of their number, Gen. Yah-
novsky, out from St. Petersburg in 1818 to the seal islands, charged
with the business of examining into the cause of this loss of surplus
male life on the islands.
V. It is a fact of indisputable record that Yahnovsky im 1820,
after spending the entire season of 1819 on the Pribilof hauling
grounds and rookeries, made a confidential, detailed report which
declared that this immense decline in the life of the fur-seal herd was
due entirely to the annual killing of all of the young male seals and
183
184 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
yearlings which the drivers of the company could secure; he urged a
complete cessation of it for a term of years.
VI. It is a fact of indisputable record that this request of Gen.
Yahnovsky was ignored by the directors, and the orders to get all of
the young male seals and yearlings were annually renewed; and
VII. It is a fact of indisputable record that at the end of the season
of 1834 instead of getting 20,000 holluschickie they secured with the
‘“itmost exertion”? only 12,000 ‘‘small”’ (yearling) seals; and that
with the end of this season’s work the herd was so reduced that the
directors were obliged to order a i0 years’ rest to all commercial kill-
ing on the islands, which went into effect in the summer of 1834, and
was faithfully enforced; so that by 1844 commercial killing was re-
sumed of a relatively small number, beginning with 10,000 to 13,000,
increasing gradually annually up to 1857, when this herd yielded
that year 62,000 ‘‘choice young male” seals, and the herd itself had
regained its natural and normal maximum number, viz, from 4,500,000
to 5,000,000 seals of all classes.
VIII. It is a fact that during all this period of decline and restora-
tion of the Russian herd from 1800 to 1857 there was nothing known
of or hinted at which is now so well known as ‘“‘pelagic sealing.”
IX. It is a fact that when. we took possession of the herd we
leased them to a corporation, with a permit to take annually 100,000
young male seals, or 40,000 more every year than had been the
average number taken by the Russian management since 1857.
X. It is a fact of indisputable record that by 1883 our lessees had
great difficulty in getting their quota this year of 100,000 ‘‘prime”’
3 and 4. year old skins; that they began to scour the hauling grounds
for them and increased the rigor of that search.and driving annually
thereafter.
XI. It is a fact of indisputable record that up to this time of first
difficulty since 1870 of getting annually 100,000 fine young male seals
no pelagic sealing of the slightest consequence was in operation.
Only six or seven small vessels, busy for a few weeks in the year off the
Straits of Fuca and west coast of Vancouver Island, had appeared in
the sea up to the opening of the season of 1886.
1. Therefore in the light, as above clearly and fairly thrown by
these records of past experience, we now know that the Pribilof herd
was reduced to the very same commercial ruin by 1834 which we now
find our herd reduced to in 1913.
2. And that this ruin of 1834, and again in 1913, was caused by the
very same close killing annually of all the young male seals and year-
lings that could be secured by the greedy Russian contractors and by
our lessees.
3. And that the Russians to save and restore the herd were com-
pelled to stop this excessive and improper killing in 1834 and suspend
any commercial killing on the islands for 10 years thereafter, or up to
1844-1846.
4. And that the experiment of annually taking 100,000 choice,
young male seals since 1870 up to 1890 by our lessees, as against the
habit of taking 60,000 annually by the Russian lessees, was a bad
one; and that this number of 100,000 ‘‘surplus male seals” was an
excessive and destructive killing, which has led to a complete elimi-
nation of the breeding male life of the herd, as we see it to day, and
which policy if continued will surely exterminate the species itself.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 185
J now reach in due order a very serious question which involves the
intelligence and the honor of Dr. David Starr Jordan, who, as the
- chairman of the commission of 1896-7, visited the seal islands and
ped to the United States Government upon the condition of
this life.
In this report Dr. Jordan has deliberately falsified the authentic
Russian records, which declared to him as they declare to us the
fact that female seals were never killed by the Russian authorities
on the seal islands of Alaska—never from start to finish of their
régime.
DR. JORDAN DELIBERATELY FALSIFIES THE RUSSIAN RECORD IN RE
NOT KILLING FEMALE SEALS.
Dr. Jordan had full knowledge of the fact that the Russian killing
of seals from the time the old Russian-American Co. took charge
of the Pribilcf herd in 1800, up to the day we received it from them
in 1867, never permitted the killing of female seals. He, with that
full knowledge in his possession, after holding it for nearly two years,
has the following untruthful statement to finally report under date
of February 24, 1898, relative to the conduct of this work of killing
seals by the Russian management of the herd, to wit:
On page 25, Fur Seal Investigations, Part 1, 1898, under head of
“The company’s management,” he says:
At once, upon assuming control of the islands, the Russian-American Co. put a
stop to the ruthless slaughter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruction
* * * They still continued to kill males and females alike. The injury to the
herd naturally continued * * *,
That Dr. Jordan could make such a statement in distinct denial
of the only authority which he has used and knows, is hard to
believe, when on page 222 following, of this same report above cited,
part 3, appears the following translation of Bishop Veniaminov’s
account of this killing, which was originally published in St. Peters-
burg, 1839, by Von Baer, to wit:
The taking of fur seals commences in the latter days of September * * *. The
siekatchie (bulls) and old females (i. e., 2 years and older) having been removed, the
others are divided into small squads, and are carefully driven to the place where
they are to be killed, sometimes more than 10 versts distance * * *, When
brought to the killing grounds, they are rested for an hour or more, according to
circumstances, and then killed withaclub * * *. Of those 1 year old, the males
a peated from the females, and killed; the latter are driven carefully back to the
eacn.
Here is the explicit clear-cut statement made by Veniaminor, who,
writing in 1825, after a season spent on St. Paul Island, denies Dr.
Jordan’s assertion that the Russians killed male and female seals
alike, and that that killing of females destroyed the herd.
And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted was made
by Leonhard Stejneger, one of Dr. Jordan’s own associates on the seal
islands in 1896-97.
There is but one conclusion for any fair mind in the premises.
That the Russians did not kill the female seals is positively stated
by the only authority who has been invoked by Dr. Jordan in the
premises, and who has been translated at length in Dr. Jordan’s final
report, and correctly translated, as above cited.
186 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should
have gone out of his way to misquote another authority who has
explicitly denied the killing of female seals by the Russians. On page
25 Jordan’s own statement is:
In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the imperial Government, after an inspection of the
fur-seal rookeries, called attention to the practice of killing the young animals and
leaving only the adults as breeders. He writes: “‘If any of the young breeders are
not killed by autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring.”
Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky cor-
rectly. He has deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this
Russian agent, and put another and entirely different statement in
his mouth. Witness the following correct quotation of Yanovsky:
In his report No. 41, of the 25th February, 1820, Mr. Yanovsky in giving an account
of his inspection of the operations on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, observes
that every year the young bachelor seals are killed and that only the cows, seekatchie,
and half siekatch are left to propagate the species. It follows that only the old seals
are left, while if any of the bachelors are left alive in the autumn they are sure to be
killed the next spring. The consequence is the number of seals obtained diminishes
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct. (Appendix
to case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration: Letter No. 6; p. 58, Mar. 15, 1821.)
Think of this deliberate, studied suppression of the fact that the
Russians did not kill the female seals thus made by a “scientist”
like Dr. Jordan, as above. Why does Dr. Jordan attempt to deceive
his Government as to the real cause of that Russian decline of the
herd between 1800-1837? Why, indeed, when the truth is so easily
brought up to confound him ?
He stands convicted out of his own hand of having falsified this
record of Russian killing so as to justify the shame and ruin of that
work of our own lessees, who are thus shielded by him in his official
report to our Government dated February 24, 1898, and published
by the Secretary of the Treasury im January, 1898, under title of
“Fur Seal Investigations,” parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898.
Why does Dr. Jordan substitute the word “breeders” for Yanov-
sky’s word “bachelors” in his quotation from that Russian agent?
Because a ‘“‘breeder’’ must be either a male or a female seal and
“breeders”? must be both male and female seals—the very idea that
Yanovsky clearly denies—the idea of killing female seals. He
denies it clearly by saying that the “young bachelors” are killed,
and they only.
This substitution of ‘‘breeders’”’ for ‘‘bachelors” by Jordan is a
guilty attempt to conceal the truth as told by Yanovsky, and plainly
told by that Russian.
At this point, and with special regard to the killing of yearling seals,
Dr. Jordan, in 1909, when the charges were being put up to him that
those young seals were being taken in violation of law and to the
injury of the herd, made no denial himself, but urged Secretary Nagel
to send his own associate and assistant, George A. Clark, up to islands
to investigate and report upon the charges, etc. (See Appendix A,
pp. 815, 816; June 24, 1911, House Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
In this connection I now ask the committee to observe the following
record of that report and its result, to wit:
On April 26, 1909, Henry W. Elliott addressed a detailed letter of
specific charges to Secretary Charles Nagel, declaring that the agents
of the Government, in collusion with the lessees, were killing yearling
seals in open, flagrant violation of the law and regulations.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 187
Mr. Nagel made no answer to Mr. Elliott, but on May 7, 1909, he
selected and appointed George A. Clark as an agent of the department
to proceed to and investigate these charges on the seal islands of
Alaska (said Clark being urged for this work by Dr. Jordan).
On September 30, 1909, Clark filed an elaborate report and con-
firmed Elliott’s charges in re killing yearlings without any qualifica-
tion, thus; and I contrast it with that of his associate, Lembkey, up
there in 1909, who denies the same, to wit:
LEMBKEY, UNDER OATH, DECLARES THAT
HE DOES NOT KILL YEARLING SEALS—
AND NEVER HAS.
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ComM-
MERCE AND LaBor, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., Thursday,
February 29, 1912.
The committee met at 11 o’clock a. m.,
Hon. John H. Rotherme! (chairman) pre-
siding.
Testimony of Walter I. Lembkey, agent
Alaska Seal Fisheries, Bureau of Fish-
eries, Department of Commerce and
Labor.
Mr. Lempxeny. Our killing is confined
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively.
The seals which they desire to kill are
dispatched at once by means of a blow on
the top of the head with a heavy club, and
the seal struck is rendered unconscious
immediately, if not killed outright.
Briefly, Mr. Elliott has accused those
charged with the management of the seal
fisheries with malfeasance in office in
that—
1. They have allowed the killing of
thousands of yearling seals.
Mr. MeGriicuppy. What do you calla
yearling seal? Do you mean a seal that
is 12 months old and no more?
Mr. Lempxey. A yearling seal, in the
island nomenclature, is a seal which has
returned to the islands from its first
migration.
Mr. McGiuicuppy. It may be more
than 12 months old then?
Mr. Lempxey. It may be more, it may
be a trifle less.
Mr. McGiuicuppy. How much more
than 12 months could it be?
Mr. Lempxey. It could not be but a
little more, because all these seals are
born during a period of three weeks, gen-
erally speaking, from the 25th of June to
the 15th of July. Now, they return to
the islands in a mass about the 25th of
July.
Mr. Mappen. Ii they were killed it
would be a violation of law.
BUT CLARK, SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF
SECRETARY NAGEL, REPORTS THE KILL-
ING OF YEARLINGS BY LEMBKEY AND
LESSEES!
The yearlings of both sexes for the sea-
son must number about 12,000 each.
This question of the proportion of the
sexes surviving to killable and breeding
age is a fundamental one. It could be
settled in a very few seasons by such regu-
lation of killing for the quota as would
limit it to animals of 3 years of age and
over, leaving the 2-year-olds untouched.
The quota would then fall where it be-
longs, on the 3-year-olds, and give a close
approximation of the survivals among the
young males, which in turn could be ap-
plied to the young females. This was the
method used in 1896-97, when a minimum
of 6 pounds in weight of skins prevailed.
During the present season and for some
seasons past a minimum of 5 pounds has
been in force, the skins taken ranging in
weight all the way from 4 to 144 pounds,
bringing all classes of animals from year-
lings to 4-year-olds into the quota.
The result of this manner of killing is
that we have no clear idea from the quota
of the number of younger animals belong-
ing to the herd. From the irregularity of
the movements of the yearlings of both
sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can
not be counted or otherwise accurately
estimated on the rookeries. (Report of
George A. Clark to Secretary Charles Nagel,
Sept. 30, 1909 (suppressed Nov. 17, 1909).
See pp. 850-851, Appendix A, June 24,
1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. of Com. & L.)
188 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
_ Mr. Lempxey. It would; if the regu-
lations permitted it, however, it would be
in accordance with existing law.
It should be remembered also that the
law does not prohibit the killing of any
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age,
although regulations of the department
do prohibit the killing of anything less
than 2 years old, or those seals which have
returned to the islands from their second
migration. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 360, 371,
372, Feb. 29—Mar. 1, 1912.)
We now come to the point in Secretary Nagel’s agent’s report
where Mr. Nagel is specifically and clearly told that the lessees are
taking yearling seals—are taking everything that comes into the
drives—taking these little seals just as Klhott has charged they were
taken on April 26, 1909, and taking them in open, flagrant violation
of the law and regulations. The following description of that illegal
and injurious slaughter is given to Mr. Nagel, September 30, 1909,
and Mr. Secretary Nagel shut his eyes to it, and presumed to deny it
to the Senate and House committees, February 4 and May 31, 1911,
to wit:
July 23.—Attended the killing at Northeast Point and looked over the rookeries
again after the drive. There are 5 harems to-day on the west side of Sea Lion Neck
where only 3 were found on the 14th.
* * * * * * *
The killing at the point this morning yielded 475 skins. The total number of
animals driven was 712. Of these, 136 were shaved heads; 48 were rejected because
too big, 53 because too little. Out of the 712 animals, therefore, only 53, or 74 per
cent, are available for next year’s quota.
With this may be compared a killing made at Northeast Point in 1897. The total
number killed was 1,322. The full drive numbered 3,869. There were no shaved
heads. Of the 2,547 exempted from killing, 500 were too large, 2,047 too small. The
2,047 small seals, or 55 per cent of the whole drive, were left for the quota of 1898.
Contrast with this the 74 per cent left for the quota of 1910.
A killing was made at Halfway Point as usual on the return trip. It yielded 32 skins.
Fifteen animals—young bulls—too large for killing and 9 shaved heads were exempted,
but no small seals whatever. As the end of the killing season approaches it is plain
that no seal is really too small to be killed. Skins of less than 5 pounds weight are
taken and alsoskinsof 8 and9 pounds. These latter are plainly animals which escaped
the killing of last year because their heads were shaved. Otherwise it does not seem
clear how they did escape.
July 24.—A killing was made this morning from Reef and Lukanin. Tolstoi has
ceased to yield any bachelors. The killing yielded 685 skins; 135 shaved heads
were turned back. The total number of animals driven was 941. Of the remaining
exemptions, 81 were too big for killing, 40 too little. In short, only slightly over
4 per cent of the animals driven were left for the quota of 1910. The actual percent-
age killed was 72. If weadd the number of killable size marked for breeding reserve,
135, the percentage of killable seals in this drive rises to 87 percent. Ina drive made
from these same rookeries on this date in 1897 the percentage of killable seals was 23.
(Report of Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909; Appendix A, pp. 887-888; House Com-
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911.)
Then again, this same agent of Secretary Nagel, and expert, as
above cited, George A. Clark (also Dr. Jordan’s assistant), says in a
letter to W. T. Hornaday, dated August 26, 1911, that the lessees
killed yearlings in 1909, and “defends” the act. He sends a copy
to the Hon. J. H. Rothermel, and asks that it be “brought to the
attention of your committee,” under date of August 28, 1911. In
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 189
it occur the following statements in re killing yearling seals (1909),
to wit:
Aside from this I approved rather than objected to the close killing * * * in
1909. It was a wise business policy in that season and in the seasons immediately
preceding and following to take every possible male on which the North American
Commercial Co. would pay the tax of $10, and it must not be forgotten that the lessees
paid this tax on every animal taken by them whether yearling or 3-year-old.
I criticized the close killing of the season of 1909 on two specific grounds. First,
that it is economically wasteful to kill at 2 or 1 year old an animal which at 3 will
produce a larger and a betterskin. Second, that the lapping of the quota over the 3-
year-olds tended to obscure an important scientific fact 1n the life of the herd which
ought to be solved, and which I had hoped to throw some light upon. I objected to
the killing of the younger seals upon these grounds only, and recommended that
the killing be confined to the age of 3 years.
This shows that the killing of yearlings which Secretary Nagel
denies in his letter to Senator Wesley L. Jones, February 23, 1911, was
well known to and stated to Nagel by his own special investigator,
George A. Clark, who was sent by him in 1909 to report upon this
killing, and who did so report under date of September 30, 1909;
his report appears to have been suppressed by Bowers (with Nagel’s
consent), and as stated on pages 82-84, Report of Elliott and Gal-
lagher, agents House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart-
ment of Commerce (Aug. 31, 1913).
IN PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND KILLING BY THE LESSEES HAS
BEEN INJURIOUS AND WITHOUT PROPER RESTRAINT, THE FOLLOW-
ING RECORD IS MADE, TO WIT (BY SECRETARY NAGEL’S OWN SPECIAL
AGENT, SEPT. 30, 1909):
In 1896, Dr. Jordan and his assistant, George A. Clark, made an
elaborate denial of the charge that excessive killing or too close
killing of the young male seals had injured and if continued would
exterminate the herd. (Pp. 33-36, Report, 1896: Treasury Doc.,
1913.) In this argument they united in saying:
In all these regards (i. e., as to killing seals) the interests of the lessees of the islands.
must be identical with those of the herd itself and therefore with those of the Gov-
ernment of the United States.
George A. Clark, sent up in 1909 by Secretary Charles Nagel, and
at Dr. Jordan’s urgent request, to make an investigation into the
condition of the herd, after the effect of 13 years’ killing by the
lessees as licensed in 1896, by Dr. Jordan, has this to say, as against
the above, anent the interests of the lessees. (Report, 1909: Ap-
pendix A, p. 854.)
The history of the killing field since 1900 strongly suggests the wisdom of reserving
to the Government in the future more complete control of work of taking the
quota. The interests of the lessees and those of the herd are by no means identical,
and the latter are paramount.
It is on the killing field, however, that the great need of a guiding and controlling
hand is shown. In 1896-97 the Government agents ordered the drives. This season
they have been entirely in the hands of the lessees. The young males set aside for
breeding purposes having been marked, the lessees have been free to take what they
could get, and this resulted in their taking practically all of the bachelors appearing
on the hauling grounds.
a % % % % * %
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
190 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
males, which must be saved from the killing fields. A leasing company will be just
as eager to get all possible skins and will press the product of the hauling grounds,
rising all too slowly, to its limit unless restrained.
x “x * With a fixed legal quota, and a limited time in which to secure it from a
failing herd, there naturally resu!ts close, severe driving. In the eagerness to see that
no possible bachelor escapes, the edges of the rookies are encroached upon and cows
included in the drives. Fitty of them appeared in drives toward the close of this
season. A drive that can not be made without including cows should be omitted.
A drive which appears on the killing field with 15 to 20 cows in it should be released
rather than incur the danger of clubbing any such cow by mistake. There should be
some one in charge of the ‘herd with power and discretion to do this. With a limited
killing season, however, this would be unfair to the lessees. There should also be
power and discretion to waive the limit and extend the time of killing if necessary.
There has been on the killing grounds since 1900 a constant struggle on the part of
the leasing company in the closing years of its concession to get every possible skin
from the declining herd. Its work has been aided by a high arbitrary legal quota and
by a lowered minimum weight of skin, enabling it to gradually anticipate the quotas
of succeeding years by killing younger animals. As a result there has occurred in
these years probably the closest killing to which the herd has ever been subjected.
Aside from the diminished supply of male life on the breeding grounds in 1904, this
is shown in the fact that though the herd has declined two-thirds in size, the quota has
never fallen more than one-third in size as compared with that of 1897.
Opposed to this struggle of the lessees has been the counter strugg!e of the Govern-
ment’s representatives to rescue a breeding reserve. Fortunately it has been suc-
cessful.
The yearlings of both sexes for the season must number about 12,000 each.
This question of the proportion of the sexe: surviving to killable and breeding age
isafundamentalone. * * * During the present season and for some seasons past
aminimum of 5 pounds has been in force and skins taken ranging in weight all the
way from 4 to 144 pounds, bringing all classes of animals from yearlings to 4-year-olds
into the quota.
The result of this manner of killing is that we have no clear idea from the quota of
the number of younger animals belonging to the herd. From the irregularity of the
movements of the yearlings of both sexes, and the 2-year-old cows, they can not be
counted or otherwise accurately estimated on the rookeries. (Report of the special
investigation ordered by Churles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor; filed Sept.
80, 1909, by Geo. A. Clark, pp. 850-851, 866, Appendix A, June 24,1911. House Com.
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
For this change in 1909, from serving the lessees in 1896, Clark’s
report was suppressed, and edited by the lessees’ men, Bowers and
Lembkey, thus, November 17, 1909:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
3UREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, November 17, 1909.
Mr. W. I. LEMBKEY,
Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D. C.
Str: Assuming that you have read and carefully considered the fur-seal report
recently made hy Mr. George A. Clark, who visited the islands during the past summer,
I desire that you prepare a statement of your views regarding the report, particularly
with reference to such data and conclusions contained therein as do not agree with
your understanding of the facts and conditions.
Kindly let me have this statement in form convenient for use at the conference of
the advisory board next Tuesday.
Respectfully, Gro. M. Bowers,
Commissioner.
This baneful result of Dr. Jordan’s work in 1896-97, which was to
assert positively that no killing by the lessees had been at fault or
was the cause of the decline of the fur-seal herd or would be, is thus
si aed admitted by his own man, in 1909—this man, Geo. A.
Clark
Leading up to this killing without any restraint (as stated oy
by Clark) in 1896, and continued to 1909, by the lessees, is the fo
lowing inside light on the cause and warrant which permitted that
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 191
illegal work to be eagerly and energetically prosecuted by both —
lessees and agents of the Government concerned, to wit:
Wasuineton, D. C., September 25, 1900.
It is understood in this year’s catch there is a much larger number than usual of
2-year-olds; the officials are very anxious that the young males in the herd should
be weeded out as closely as possible, and as has been stated. * * * The depart-
ment would be glad if a way could be found to induce the lessees to kill a considerable
number of the 5-year-old bulls. (Fur Trade Review: New York City, October,
1900, p. 513.)
This utterly absurd and untruthful statement being made to con-
ceal the truth that during this very season of 1900, there were so few
2-year-olds and 3-year-olds, and still fewer 4-year-olds, with no
5-year-olds left, that the lessees had issued orders to get every year-
ling seal that hauled out, every one save the ‘‘runts’’ (i. e., the
“Ex. Ex. Sm. Pups’’).
Then, to soberly and boldly come into the presence of the House
committee, and swear that no yearlings had ever been killed, from
May 31, 1911, until the truth had been forced out of them April 13,
19i2, was the business of Secretary Charles Nagel and his entire
staff of fur-seal officials and ‘‘experts.”’
PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF UNLAWFUL TAKING OF YEARLIN
SEALSKINS, 1896-1912. ;
That Charles Nagel, Geo. M. Bowers, Barton W. Evermann, Dr.
David Starr Jordan, Geo. A. Clark, and the entire fur-seal service
under their control had full and authoritative knowledge of the real
weights of one, two, three, four, five, and six year old sealskins
when fresh removed and properly skinned forsalt curing, is well proven
by the following facts of official record in the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, when they prosecuted and directed the killing of fur
seals on the Pribilof Islands during the seasons of 1909, 1910, 1911,
1912, and 1913, to wit:
IT. On April 17, 1874, Congress passed an act, which was approved
on the 22d following, entitled ‘‘An act to enable the Secretary of the
Treasury to gather authentic information in regard to the condition
of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and for other purposes,”’ etc.
II. In obedience to the order of this act the Secretary appointed
and instructed a special agent charged with that duty; his report was
rendered to the Secretary November 16 following, and the Secretary,
in June, 1875, published it as the accepted and fully established
authority on all questions regarding the fur-seal herd and the con-
duct of the public business on the seal islands of Alaska. This
official publication is entitled ‘‘A Report Upon the Condition of Af-
fairs in the Territory of Alaska: November 16, 1874. S8vo. pp. 277.
Washington. Government Printing Office. 1875. By Henry W.
Elhott, special agent Treasury Department.”
This was printed, and bound in cloth beards, and distributed by
the department to all of its customs agents on the Pacific coast and in
Alaska, on the seal islands, and very generally to the customs agents
e ane department in Washington, D. C., New England, New York, and
altimore.
~ 7
192 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
III. On page 150 of this pabhenion is the following table of the
measurements and weights of fur seals, one, two, three, four, five, and
six years old, and of their skins when removed from their bodies:
Table showing the weight, size, and growth of the fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), from the
pup to the adult, male and female.
a
Gross .
~ Age. Length. | Girth. {weight of Weteht ~ Remarks.
body. ;
Inches. | Inches. | Pounds. | Pounds.
Ihweoksts sco 5: 3 12-14 10-103 6-74 14 | A male and female, being the only ones of the
class handled, June 20, 1873.
6 months......-- 24 25 39 3 | A mean of 10 examples, males and females,
| ~ alike in size, Nov. 28, 1872.
Mey Cars oe tae 38 | 25 39 43 | A mean of 6 examples, males and females,
alike in size, July 14, 1873.
DV CATS tench os se 45 30 | 58 53 | A mean of 30 examples, all males, July 24,1873.
SYYV.CAlse ee ees 52 36 87 7 | Amean of 32 examples,all males, July 24, 1873.
ASV CATS snc btic Sai3 58 | 42 | 135 12 | A mean of 10examples,all males, July 24, 1873.
OV GAlSen- te oes 2 _ 65 | 52 | 200 16 | A mean of 5 examples, all males, July 24, 1873.
Gyyearses oo ae 72 | 64 | 280 | 25 | Ameanof 3examples, all males, July 24, 1873.
8 to 20 years. .... 75-80 70-75 | 400-500 | 45-50 | Anestimate only, calculating on their weight
} when fat, and early in the season.
On May 31, 1911, Mr. Henry W. Elliott made the followmg sworn
statement to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department
of Commerce and Labor (Hearing No. 1, pp. 12, 13, House Com. Exp.
Dept. Com. & Labor), to wit (Secretary Nagel was present):
Mr. Exxiorr. I want the committee to understand the part which was taken by
the lessees in 1872, with the Treasury agents, of whom I was one, in fixing an official
standard whereby we could recognize every sea! officially reported to the Treasury
Department as it was sold in London, because the London classifications were dif-
ferent from ours as to phraseology.
The London people knew nothing and still know nothing about the age of seals,
and they cared nothing about it. They were interested in the size and the quality.
They ascertained and formed their idea of the skin’s value primarily by its measure-
ment, and, secondly, by its weight. The weight would vary. Semetimes more
salt and blubber are used, and sometimes less. But the measurements were reason-
ably steady and constant. They measure their sealskins. We weighed ours on the
islands. To reconcile those differences. it became very important in 1872 to know
exactly what we were doing on the islands, so that we would understand exactly what
they were doing in London when they sold them. I want the committee to fix this
in their minds, because the whole thing turns on this proposition. I said to the
superintendent, ‘‘Why do you kill all those big seals? Do they ask you to kill all
the big seals and let all these smaller seals go? Why don’t you take them all?” He
said, ‘‘They do not want them. They want those large seals. They call them ‘mid-
dlings’ and ‘smalls,’ etc.’? Then I said, “‘Can we not have some arrangement made
whereby we can avoid this culling of the herd? Don’t yousee. Dr. McIntyre, ina short
time, if this is kept up, that no good male seal will ever get past your firing line to
go onto the breeding rookeries?”’ He said, ‘‘Oh, yes, Brother Elliott, but just look
at them out there—millions of them. You do not need to worry about that.”
Well, I admitted that there was no need to worry then, but I said to my associ-
ates: ‘‘Gentlemen, we have got to have some understanding when we officially report
to our Government what the grades of these seals are which the lessees are killing,
so we can trace the record of their work from the islands to London and back again.
Let us get together now and form a complete agreement as to what constitutes the
skin of a ‘yearling’ seal, the skin of a ‘2-year-old,’ and a ‘3-year-old.’ and a ‘4-year-
old, a ‘5-year-old,’ and so on.’’ We worked over that thing through the whole sea-
son of 1872. That was-something that these men took hold of with a great deal of
pleasure. We renewed this discussion, comparison, and study on the skin weights,
ages, etc., of the seals in 1873. Mr. McIntyre went to London and got the weights
and measurements of aset of skins, which he took over assamples, of 1, 2.3, 4, and
5 year olds. He brought them back to us with the stamp on them as ‘‘small pups,”
and so on. So there was no doubt of what we were doing. Officially, we had no
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 193
business with the sale or nomenclature of the skins in London. So, therefore, we
eliminated that from our report, and we spoke of the settled standard on the islands;
that they killed ‘“‘prime,”’ or ‘‘short” skins or ‘‘7-pound”’ or ‘‘6-pound”’ skins, as
the case might be. We never alluded to them as being ‘‘middlings”’ or ‘‘smalls.’’
We prepared a table, which you will find on page 81 of Special Bulletin No. 176 of
the United States Fish Commission. That is the official publication which was agreed
upon by the four Treasury agents with whom I was associated, the seven agents of
the lessees (who were very much interested, indeed, in what we agreed upon), and
@ special commissioner of the United States, Lieut. Commander Washburn Maynard,
United States Navy, who was with me in 1874. In that table you will find that a
*‘vearling” seal weighs 44 pounds.
Mr. TowNsEND. You mean the pelt or hide?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; with a small amount of blubber which is attached, varying all
the way irom a quarter of a pound to a pound, as the agent orders it ‘‘loaded.”’
In 1882 the elaborated and final notes of Mr. Elliott’s work of 1874,
published by the Department of the Treasury in 1875, were again
republished by order of the Government in Volume VIII, Tenth
Census, United States of America, and in Special Bulletin No. 176.
The original table, as above, of 1874-75 publicationis on page 46.
Then on page 81 appears the elaboration of those grades of fur which
belong to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old skins, as follows, to wit:
GRADATION OF THE FUR OF CALLORHINUS URSINUS.
The gradation of the fur of Callorhinus may, perhaps, be best presented in the
following manner:
One-year-old male, well grown, at July 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as to
uniform length and thickness and evenness of distribution; it is lighter in color and
softer in texture than hereafter during the life of the animal; average weight of skin
as removed by the sealers from the carcass, 44 pounds.
Two-year-old male, well grown, at June | of every season: Fur fully developed as
to even length and thickness and uniformity of distribution; it has now attained the
darker buff and fawn color, sometimes almost brown, which it retains throughout the
rest of the life of the animal; it is slightly and perceptibly firmer and stiffer than it
was last year, not being at all “fluffy” as in the yearling dress now; average weight of
skin as taken from the body, 53 pounds.
Three-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as
to even length, but a shade longer over the shoulders, where the incipient “wig” is
forming; otherwise perfectly uniform in thickness and even distribution; this is the
very best grade of pelt which the seal affords during its life; average weight of skin,
as taken from the body, 7 pounds.
Four-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as
to even length, except a decided advance in length and perceptible stiffness over the
shoulders, in the ‘‘wig’’; otherwise perfectly uniform in thickness and even distribu-.
tion; this grade is almost as safe to take and as good as in the 3-year-old; average weight
of skin, as removed, 12 pounds.
Five-year-old male, well grown, at May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully devel-
oped, but much longer and decidedly coarser in the “wig” region; otherwise uniform
in thickness and distribution; the coarseness of the fur over the shoulders and dispro-
portionate length thereon destroys that uniformity necessary for rating Al in the
market; in fact, it does not pay to take this skin; average weight, 16 pounds.
Six-year-old male, well grown, from May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully
developed, still longer and stiffer in the “wig” region, with a slightly thinner dis-
tribution over the post-dorsal region, and shorter; this skin is never taken—it is
profitless; average weight, 25 pounds.
Seven-year-old and upward male, from May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully
developed, but very unevenly distributed, being relatively scant and short over
the posterior dorsal region, while it is twice as long and very coarse in the covering
to the shoulders especially and the neck and chest; skins are valueless to the fur
trade; weight, 45 to 60 pounds.
Then follows, on page 168, same publication, the following recapit -
ulation of the above-cited growth and weights of fur seals.
53490—_14—_13
194 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Table showing the relative growth, weight, etc., of the fur seals.
{Compiled from the field notes of the author, made upon the killing grounds of St. George and St. Paul.]
Growth of fair average example. Uday, 6 ae | 1 aa 2 wae 3 ee
Length: 1
Callorhinus ursinus (male)......-.-..--- inches..| 12-13 24 38 45 52
Callorhinus ursinus (female)---.-...---.-.- doles a2=13 24 37 423 48
Girth immediately behind fore-flippers: 3 }
Callorhinus ursinus (male)......---------- domes: 9-104 25 25 30 36
Callorhinus ursinus (female).-........----- doves 9-10 25 25 30 34
Weight (avoirdupois): 4
Callorhinus ursinus (male)......------- pounds. . 5- 74 39 40 58 87
Callorhinus ursinus (female)....-.-.------- do...- 5- 7 39 39 56 ~ 60
; 4years | 5years | 6 years | 7 years | 8 years
Growth of fair average example. olde old ald Alas Sih
Length: !
Collorhinus ursinus (male).....-....----- inches. - 58 65 72 75-80 (2)
Collorhinus ursinus (female)....-.-......-- Gopeee 50 (5 82a sag Se SS eee
Girth immediately behind fore-flippers: 3
Callorhinus ursinus (male)..........------ doreee 42 52 64 70-80 80-84
Callorhinus ursinus (female)........------- doeea-| 36 37 Qo esscG ee eee
Weight (avoirdupois): 4 :
Callorhinus ursinus (male).-.........-.-.- pounds... 135 200 | 280-350} 400-500 500-600
Callorhinus ursinus (female)........--.---- dosess 62 75 (2). 3. | wate ages Ee
1 Direct from tip of nose to root of tail.
2 Ceases.
3 Eight year old citation an estimate only.
4 Seven and § year estimates are not based upon actual weights; an opinion merely.
Nore.—All fur seals, from yearlings to puberty, are termed ‘‘bachelors,”’ or ‘‘holluschickie,”’ and all
male fur seals from the age of 5 years on are termed (‘‘virile’’) bulls, or “‘seacatchie.’’ All female
fur seals from 1 year and upward are termed ‘‘cows,” or ‘‘matkamie’’ (‘‘mothers’”’). All the young under
yearlings are termed ‘‘pups,”’ or ‘‘kotiche”’ (“little cats’’).
Since this publication by the Government of the above tables of
fur seal skin weights in 1875 and 1882, there has been no other
attempt made to do so. There has been no witness before the House
committee who has been able to show that an error of any kind is
published in those tables.
The Hitchcock rules of May 1, 1904, as well as the Carlisle rules of
May 14, 1896, were based upon those records of the weights of fur-
seal skins taken from seals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old.
The attempt made to deny the accuracy of these tables by Nagel’s
confederates, Bowers, Lembkey, Evermann, and Lucas, ended
instantly when those men were put under oath. Bowers declared he
did not know what a yearling skin weighed. Lembkey has admitted
its weight was 44 pounds. He testified as follows:
eo LeMBKEY. I have taken the weights on the island of all seal skins weighed
there.
Mr. Exziorr. You have? I want to call your attention to this, and the attention of
the committee. You say you have taken note of the weights?
Mr. LemsBxKey. I have testified before the committee that every skin taken on the
islands except a few that inadvertently were omitted were weighed there.
Mr. Exuiotr. What is the weight of a yearling fur seal skin?
Mr. LemBKEY. I weighed very few yearling skins, but they would usually run up
to4or4?pounds. (Hearing No. 9; p. 435, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
No other member of the advisory board save Lembkey knew what
a yearling seal skin weighed or measured, and all confessed their
ignorance under oath to the committee. (See pp. 914-919; hearing
No. 14, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp., Dept. C. & L.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 195
Therefore when Secretary Straus in 1906, 1907, and 1908, and
Secretary Nagel were plainly and clearly advised of the fact that
their agents and the seal contractors or lessees were busy in violating
the regulations of the Government on the seal islands, and falsely
certifying the illegal catch of yearling male and female seals into
them as “the skims of male seals not under 2 years of age,’’ it was
their sworn duty to have investigated into that fraud at once.
They did not; they shirked the responsibility; first, as Mr. Straus
did, and who threw it upon an advisory board of “‘scientists,’’ who,
in turn, shamefully failed to do their duty in the premises, and who
also found that Secretary Nagel wanted them to shield those men
who had been guilty of that criminal trespass upon the fur-seal herd
of Alaska. Having found this spirit of Nagel, these scientists weakly
and improperly allowed their names to be used by Nagel as his justi-
fication, or “high scientific’ authority for continuing that fraudulent
killing.
Gkeerve the manner in which Charles Nagel uses these ‘‘scientists”’
as “experts’’ to justify his ruinous and illegal slaughter of the year-
ling male and female seals annually. When taxed with this crime,
he says to Senator Dixon, Chairman Senate Committee on Conserva-
tion of National Resources:
The CHarrMAN. You may proceed.
Mr. Extiorr. Here is something that will interest you, because politicians and
lawyers have a regard for ‘‘scientists” that is really unduly exalted. Most scientists
are not as wise as some people wiser than they are, seem to think they are. Here is
a letter from Secretary Charles Nagel in answer to an inquiry by the Committee on
Conservation of National Resources as to his authority for his work of killing fur seals
on the Pribilof Islands in violation of law and rules, and who puts this killing as done
squarely upon Jordan, Stejneger, Merriam, et al.:
(Copy.)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, January 14, 1911.
My Dear Senator: I have your communication of the 12th instant inclosing Sen-
ate bill No. 9959 to amend an act entitled ‘‘An act to protect the seal fisheries of
Alaska, and for other purposes.”’
The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period
of five years from and after the Ist day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your
committee last year I have had some occasion to consider this question with the
result that the impressions then expressed have, if anything, been strengthened.
Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in an
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 argu-
ment which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation.
However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso-
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per-
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion.
I gather that a further ground has been assigned for the discontinuance of seal
killing, namely, that such discontinuance would be received by foreign countries
as proof of our disinterestedness, and that such a course would serve to promote the
consummation of treaties to prohibit pelagic sealing. If this were so, I should, of
course, advocate the discontinuance, but I have no intimation from the State Depart-
iment that such a course on our part would have the slightest bearing upon pending
196 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
negotiations. I can not undertake to speak upon this phase of the question, but no
doubt that information can be readily obtained from the State Department.
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 thata gain in the receipt of a few hundred thousand dollars
ought to be conclusive in determining the Government’s policy. On the contrary,
I am of the opinion that the primary consideration to have in mind is one of conserva-
tion, namely, the preservation of the herds. If I could believe that the policy which
the Government now pursues in any sense endangers the herds I should advocate
a change. My recommendation with respect to the bill now pending is based upon
the opinion that the Government is now killing only such male seals as may be
regarded as surplus, and that the preservation of the herds is not in any degree affected
by this policy.
If it is proposed to have a hearing upon this bill I respectfully ask that as much
notice as possible be given, so that I may make sure to have present those representa-
tives of the bureau and such members of the boards and commissions as are more
especially conversant with the question.
Very sincerely, yours,
(Signed) CHARLES NAGEL.
Hon. JosepH M. Drxon, .
United States Senate.
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 914-918, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
What did ‘‘those representatives of the bureau and such members
of the boards and commissions,” when put under oath and duly
examined, say ?
Why, each and every one of them, save Lembkey, declared them-
selves totally ignorant of what the killing of a yearling seal meant;
they did not know what its size or its skin weight was; they did not
know what Bowers, Nagel, and Lembkey were doing.
But Lembkey knew—and the truth was extorted from this most
unwilling and shifty and evasive witness under close, determined
cross-examination—Nagel was killmg and had been killing yearling
seals, females and males alike, by thousands and tens of thousands
in 1909-10; yes, until checked by the law of August 24, 1912, from
further illegal and ruinous slaughter.
Further proof of the guilty knowledge of the Bureau of Fisheries
and of the advisory board on fur-seal service of the real and proper
weights of sealskins when correctly removed from the bodies of 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old seals, is given in the following letter written
to the President of the United States by Dr. David Starr Jordan,
chairman of said board.
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
Stanford University, Cal., January 16, 1906.
Hon. THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
The White House, Washington, D. C.
Dear Srr: * * * If the memorandum referred to by Mr. Elliott as the Hitch-
cock rules of 1904 be enforced, as I suppose they have been, the matter will soon
regulate itself. * * * I note that Mr. Elliott states with reference to the ‘‘Hitch-
cock rules” that “‘the Department of Commerce and Labor engaged to order them”
at his instance. This may be true, but these rules were drawn up by myself in Mr.
Hitchcock’s office in 1904. They seemed to me to represent a fair conservatism, and it
is gratifying to find that for once I was in agreement with Mr. Elliott in a matter in-
volving executive procedure.
* * * * * * *
Very respectfully, yours,
Davip Starr JORDAN,
Former Commissioner in Charge Fur Seal Investigations.
(Appendix A, p. 331, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 197
Here is the unqualified statement made by Dr. Jordan that he has
fully agreed upon a minimum weight of ‘‘53 pounds” for skins to be
taken on the Pribilof Islands; that this order represents ‘‘a fair con-
servation,” and he is gratified to find ‘‘that for once” he ‘‘was in
agreement with Mr. Elhott” on this ‘‘matter involving executive
rocedure.”
With that full knowledge and great satisfaction on his part, over
the fact that ‘‘54 pounds” was a minimum weight of a correctly
skinned seal’s pelt which could be safely and properly taken without
injury to the herd, January 16, 1906, as above declared, why did this
chief authority on March 9, 1906, immediately following, agree to the
lowering of this minimum weight to ‘‘5 pounds” on that day? And
that lowering down done by his fellow-citizen and neighbor, Victor
Metealf, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who lived only a few
miles away from Palo Alto, at Oakland, Cal.!
Why did he agree to it? And still more and worse for Dr. Jordan
and Secretary Charles Nagel’s agents, as well as for Nagel himself, on
November 23, 1909, these men all united in a unanimous recom-
mendation that this improper ‘‘5-pound”’ minimum for seal pelts be
continued in a new lease for the islands to be made May 1, 1910!
The following sworn testimony proves it, to wit:
Mr. Bowers. On November 23, 1909, there was a meeting of the advisory board
with the fur-seal hoard and the Commissioner of Fisheries and Deputy Commissioner
of Fisheries (Dr. Hugh M. Smith), at which were present also Mr. Chichester and Mr.
George A. Clark. After mature deliberation these gentlemen unanimously agreed
upon the following recommendations:
1. It is recommended that the agent in charge, fur-seal service, shall, under the
direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, have full power to limit or restrict
the killing of fur seals and blue foxes on the Pribilof Islands to any extent necessary
and that no specified quota be indicated in the lease.
2. It is recommended that, for the present, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 84
pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be taken, and that not more than 95 per cent of the
3-year-old male seals be killed in any one year. (Hearing No. 2, p. 110, July 9, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
Here is the change of a ‘‘fair’’ and proper minimum weight of 54
pounds to one of *‘5 pounds,” improperly made, ordered so as to
facilitate the ‘‘loading” of yearling 44-pound skins into the 2-year-
old class or 54-pound skins.
In spite of all the protests made since 1906 against this trick of
regulation continuing so as to permit an easier criminal trespass by
the lessees upon the seal herd, yet in 1909, these men in charge who
are public officials, all sworn to protect and conserve that fine public
pusperty on the seal islands of Alaska, actually combined with the
essees, on November 23, and sought to continue that public impcsi-
tion in a new lease.
Charles Nagel, David Starr Jordan, George M. Bowers, George A.
Clark, B. W. Evermann, W. I. Lembkey, Isaac Liebes, S. B. Elkins,
and D. O. Mills all had then guilty knowledge of this trespass by
them, as above cited, in the past, in the present, and fer the future,
when this meeting was held November 23, 1909, in the city of Wash-
ington, D. C., office of the United States Commission of Fisheries, and
then adjourned to Charles Nagel’s office in the Department of Com-
merce Building the same day.
The men who were present at this remarkable meeting and voted
as a unit to renew that lease and public imposition were David Starr
oJ
198 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Jordan, Leonhard Stejneger, Frederic A. Lucas, Edwin A. Sims,
Charles H. Townsend, Barton Warren Evermann, Walter I. Lembkey,
Millard C. Marsh, George M. Bowers, Hugh M. Smith, H. D. Chiches-
ter, and George A. Clark. (See the official record of that presence
and vote, p. 814, Appendix A, H. Com. xp. Dept. C. & L., June 24,
1911.)
Secretary Nagel, in his letter to Senator Dixon dated January 14,
1911, and before he issued his orders through Bowers and Lembkey
to kill seals on the Pribilof Islands, 12,002 of them in June and July
following, has this to say in justification of that order for this killing
of 6,247 yearling seals, which followed his directions.
Remember he had the specific protest of April 26, 1909, and proof
of its charge September 30, 1909, before him, against the work of
his agents in 1909 and 1910—that work of killing female and male
yearling seals in violation of the law, and of the regulations pledged
to the Congress of the United States March 9, 1904 (the Hitchcock
rules). With those protests and proof thereof in his.hands, he stated
to the Senate committee January 14, 1911:
Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it is
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me
to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number
of female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male
seals killed by the Government. If that the true, one and perhaps the chief argument
which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation.
However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso-
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per-
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report,
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion.
Here he tells the committee that he believes in killing those small
seals “‘in the manner in which it is being done.”
Then he declares that while his ‘‘personal judgment is without
value, I am relying upon the advice of experts who have been ap-
pointed to inquire and report, and who have given the department
the benefit of their opinion.”
When those “‘experts,” Stejneger, Merriam, Townsend, Lueas, and
Evermann came up before the House committee in April and May,
1912, each and every one of them declared themselves ignorant of
what Nagel had done with regard to killmg yearling seals. They
did not know what a yearling sealskin was. (See Hearing No.14,
pp- 914-919, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
When Secretary Nagel in order to fortify himself against attack,
called the “advisory board on fur seal service”’ into session at Wash-
ington, D.C., November 23, 1909, and got from that body of “ experts”
(Jordan, Lucas, Townsend, Evermann, Bowers, Hugh Smith, Stej-
neger, Clark, and Lembkey) the “unanimous recommendation”
that he renew the seal lease and continue this improper killing of 95
per cent of the male life, it will be noticed that Dr. C. Hartt Merriam
and Frank H. Hitchcock did not attend and join in that “ unanimous”
recommendation.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 199
The reason why Dr. Merriam did not is perhaps best stated in his
testimony on May 4, 1912, to the House committee. He was opposed
to the killing of yearling seals under any circumstances, to wit:
Mr. McGurre. Then, in case anyone in the House of Representatives has used
your name as a person who would be opposed to the killing on the islands they were
wrong about your position?
Dr. Merriam. They were wrong. I have never taken any such position. I have
always heid the contrary. I have always stated, since the first time I went there,
that conservative killing on the islands was a benefit to the herd and not an injury,
but I should not allow the killing of yearlings under any circumstances, and I should
not kill more than 75 per cent of the young on land at any one time. I would be sure
to leave more than enough for possible contingencies. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 694-695,
May 4, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.)
So it is very evident that Secretary Nagel did not take the advice
of Dr. Merriam, and as for Mr. Hitchcock, his well-known opposition
to this violation of the rules of the department—the Hitchcock rules
of May 1, 1904, needs no further comment here. _
Then why did Secretary Nagel persist in killing these yearling
seals, males and females alike? Of 7,333 of them in 1910 and 6,247
of them in 1911?
Because there was nothing left that the agents could find to kill,
and this continued improper killing would make the false reports of
1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, which the lessees had written, “regular,”
and hide the sudden collapse in killing which would appear instantly
if no yearlings were taken in 1910; also in 1911.
That is why he persisted in this criminal trespass—to prevent the
sudden exposure of it by contrast between the unlawful killing of 1909
with a lawful killing in 1910; and again in 1911.
SAMPLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC “ AUTHORITY’? QUOTED BY SECRETARY
CHARLES NAGEL, JAN. 14, 1911, AS HIS WARRANT FOR KILLING 7,733.
YEARLINGS IN 1910.
The peculiar and particular “‘science”’ which those lawless lessees:
and their agents on the islands and in Washington had complete
regard for in the persons of Dr. Jordan and his assistants, -is well
exhibited in Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, whose remarkably frank testi-
mony follows.
Stejneger, strangely enough, has no knowledge of what the agents
of the Bureau of Fisheries, Bowers, et al., have been doing as to illegal
killing of yearling seals on the Pribilof Islands, season of 1910. And
he had no official consultation with Bowers or Nagel about it, he
swears.
Then, in the next breath, he declares that if the law did not pre-
vent, he would kill yearlings. In other words, he would do exactly
as Bowers and Nagel did do.
Dr. Stejneger is unfortunate in his ‘‘scientific”’ advice to those men
when he says:
I hold that you can kill, in the months of June and July—that is the season prac-
tically when the killing is done—in the season you can kill all the males without
any detriment to the herd. I will say all the usable skins, three years and less; that
is my opinion, my deliberate opinion.
The CuarrmMan. But I understood Prof. Elliott to ask you whether you advised
Mr. Bowers?
Dr. Stesnecer. I may have said that very thing.
The Cuairman. Kill all the killable seals?
200 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exiiorr. That is,allheecan find. |
Dr. StesJNEGER. With the limitation if in season. I undoubtedly advised such a
thing, and should advise it now.
He actually goes to the following extreme limit of license to destroy,
to wit: :
INVESTIGATION OF FuR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LaBoR,
Houser or REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, May 4, 1912.
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.
‘ evans STEJNEGER, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as
ollows:
The CuHarrmMan. 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. StesyNEGER. I do not know, because I have not been on the island since 1897—
since 1896.
If I may be allowed to make a statement, since you ask whether I had any statement
to make, the law is the law, and has to be lived up to; but whether seal is killed as
1-year old or when older could not affect the seal herd to any extent and could not
hurt it at all; you might just as well kill 1-year olds or 2-year olds or 3-year olds. As
a matter of fact, you could not kill as large a percentage of 1-year olds as of 2 or 3 year
olds. The 1-year olds would be 2-year olds the next year, and then you would kill
them anyhow. The Government would realize a little less money for the smaller
skins. That would be the whole result.
The CuHarrMan. Dr. Evermann, do you or anyone else wish to ask the doctor any
questions?
Dr. EveRMANN. I have no questions.
The CuarrMaAn. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions?
Mr. Exxiorr. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. SteEJNEGER. I could not tell you.
Mr. Exxiorr. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. STEINEGER. No.
Mr. Extiorr. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling
seal as taken from the body?
Dr. SresyNEGER. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling
seal killed on the American islands.
Mr. Extrotrr. Were you in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the
killing of 12,920 seals on the seal islands in 1910?
Dr. SrEJNEGER. Do you mean in personal special consultation with Mr. Bowers?
Mr. Exxrorr. Did Mr. Bowers
Dr. SteynEGER. Not outside of what I have said in the board.
Mr. Extrorr. No, no. I asked you, did Mr. Bowers advise with you?
Dr. STEJNEGER. Personally?
Mr. Exxrotrr. Not when he issued his order to kill 12,920 seals in 1910?
Dr. StesneGER. I do not quite understand whether it was with me personally or
as a member of the board.
Mr. Exziotr. Well, as a member of the board, do you remember any consultation
with him about issuing those orders?
Dr. STEJNEGER. No; I do not remember.
1 He makes a flat statement that if the law did not prevent, he would kill yearlings. This ‘‘scientist”
has been loudly finding fault with the pelagic sealers because they kill female seals, yet he, too, would kill
female seals, for half of the yearlings are females. This is ‘‘science’’ with a vengeance, and just the kind
that Nagel, Bowers, Lembkey, and Jordan appreciate as the tools of the lessees—Mills, Bites ee
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 201
Mr. Euuiotr. Then, Dr. Stejneger, I have no further questions to ask you, except
this: I would like to ask about the Fur Trade Review, issue of September, 1900.
On pages 456, 457, and 458 you are cited as the authority for the following [reading]:
‘““STEJNEGER’S ‘AUTHORITY’ FOR EXCESSIVE LAND KILLING.
‘WASHINGTON, May 25, 1901.
“The best authorities here (Stejneger and the Treasury officials) agree that there is
no necessity for a limit to the killing of the lessees on the islands for two reasons: First,
because it is conceded that the welfare of the present herd requires the taking of as
many killable males per annum as can be found; and, second, because * * * the
proposed agreement between the United States and Great Britain would leave this
Government the sole proprietor of the sealing industry in the eastern half of the
Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.’’ (Fur Trade Review, June, 1901, pp. 285-286.)
Do you still think it is the best thing to do to kill everything that can be found
up there?
Dr. StesNEGER. It depends upon the way—the exact words—in which you put it.
Mr. Exrrotr. Here is the sentiment; is this your idea?—
*“That there is no necessity to the limit of the killing of the lessees on the islands
* * * because it is conceded that the welfare of the present herd requires the
taking of as many killable males per annum as can be found.”’’
Dr. StesnecerR. The point is ‘‘as can be found.’’ If you.eliminate that, I can
well conceive that I had advised as stated.
Mr. Exuiotr. | am willing. You can eliminate everything and anything you have
done. I do not object. But I want to know if you gave him that impression, that
he could go up and kill everything he could find and do no harm.
Dr. STEINEGER. Not everything and ‘‘do no harm.’’
Mr. Extrorr. I mean ‘“‘killable seals.”’
Dr. StesneceER. Killable seals?
Mr. Extiotr. I mean killable seals—everything he could find.
Dr. StesnecER. That must he within the proper season for the killing.
Mr. Exuiorr. 1910.
Dr. SteINEGER. You want to pin me down to—
Mr. Extiorr. You are a scientist, and you can not be pinned down.
The CuarrMaNn. He is referring to the statement.
Dr. StesNeceR. I have nothing to do with that. It is hearsay of a report of some-
thing; I have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Extrorr. I ask you if you hold those views?
Dr. SterNEGER. Let me state what I hold and what I don’t hold, in my own words:
T hold that you can kill, in the months of June and July—that is the season practically
when the killing is done—in the season you can kill all the males without any detri-
ment to the herd. I will say all the usable skins, three years and less; that is my
opinion, my deliberate opinion.
n The CHarrMan. But I understood Prof. Elliott to ask you whether you advised Mr.
owers.
Dr. StesNeGER. I may have said that very thing.
The CHarrMan. Kill all the killable seals?
Mr. Extrorr. That is, all he can find.
Dr. StesNecER. With the limitation if in season. I undoubtedly advised such a
thing, and should advise it now.
The CuarrmMan. Do you think all the killable seals should be taken for the good of
the herd?
Dr. StesNeEGER. All the killable seals that you can take there at that time. The
fact is that you can not take all of the killable seals.
The CuareMan. It seems to me—I am only trying to clear it up so that we will not
have a misunderstanding when it is over—you should state whether you think it is
best for the herd to take all of the killable seals.
Dr. StesneceR. With that reservation, all the killable seals that you can kill within
the season. I do not mean that you can——
The CuarrMan. That you can find?
Dr. StesnEcER. The ones that you can catch.
Mr. Extiorr. That is perfectly clear; that is all I wanted.
202 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
THE SUBORNATION OF SCIENCE TO SERVE A CRIMINAL TRESPASS
ON THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA.
(To justify the killing of all the young male seals, the false argu-
ment was used that if they did not do so they would only grow up, go
onto the breeding grounds, fight there, ‘‘and tear the cows to pieces
and trample the pups to death.” Dr. Stejneger was one of the scien-
tific authorities quoted for this nonsense and fraud.)
Dr. Stejneger denies in his report of 1898, his own sworn statement
made to the House committee of May 4, 1912, in re trampled pups.
He does so in the most explicit language, and he is now quoted below
from his finished and ‘‘elaborate report,’’ which he handed to the
chairman when he was sworn and examined. He says in it that the
pups are not harmed by severe, prolonged trampling, to wit:
It is certainly significant that on Bering Island over a thousand pups are yearly
driven to the killing ground, there to be released, without any visible harm coming to
them worth mentioning. If these newly born seals can stand to be driven three-
fourths of a mile from Kishotchnoye and to be repeatedly trampled upon by the larger
ones piling up four high or more on top of them, it stands to reason that the vigorous
holustiaki, or even the females as a whole, can suffer but little injury from the same
cause. (The Fur-Seal Investigations, Pt. LV, 1898, p. 101, by Leonhard Stejneger.)
After having deliberately published the above as ‘‘facts” of his
own observation in 1898, yet Dr. Leonhard Stejneger in 1912 denies
it under oath to the House committee as follows.
Witness the following sworn proof of it, to wit:
INVESTIGATION OF FurR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
CoMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
House oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Saturday, May 4, 1912.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre-
siding.
Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire.
STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER.
LEONARD STEJNEGER, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as
follows:
Dr. StesneceER. In that case, I
1882 and stayed until the fall of 1
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 on that.
This [handing book to the chairman] gives all the data.
In 1896 I was appointed a member of the Fur-Seal Investigation Commission, of
which Dr. Jordan was the chairman. We went up early in the season and I stayed on
the Pribilof Islands for 10 days with the other members of the commission and went
all over the rookeries at that time, and did part of the counting of the rookeries on the
American islands, and then went over to the Commander Islands again and inspected
the rookeries there, mapped the distribution of the seals on the rookeries then as com-
pared to what they were in 1882, 1883, and 1895.
* * * * * * *
Mr. McGuire. According to your observation, now, Doctor, if those herds were left
alone untouched by man, what would you regard as the principal agencies of destruc-
tion of that animal life?
* * * * * * *
should say I first came to the Commander Islands in
883, remaining the winter.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 203
Dr. SteEJNEGER. Fighting of the males and trampling of the pups.
Mr. McGuire. Then, where they were left untouched until they had accumulated
large numbers of males, would there have been trampling under those conditions?
Dr. STEJNEGER. That is the greatest danger to the herd.
* * * * * * *
Mr. McGuire. Now, your testimony with respect to the killing of the pups by the
fighting of battles by the males is based upon not only your general information, that
you have been able to obtain in general way, but as well upon two years’ actual stay
upon seal islands?
Dr. STEJNEGER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual observation?
Dr. StEINEGER. Surveys of the rookeries.
Mr. McGuire. You have personally observed those conditions, have you?
Dr. STEJNEGER. Yes, sir. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 699, 700, 703.)
On May 16, 1912, a few days following the above date of Stejneger’s
strange testimony as to the “destruction” caused by the killing of
ups by the trampling of them by fighting males, his own associate,
r. F. A. Lucas, on the Jordan Commission, 1897-98, swears that he
knows better—that he never saw a bull trample a pup to death:
The CHarrMAN. What experience have you had as to the fur-seal industry in
Alaskaor as a member of the advisory board?
Dr. Lucas. I was a member of the Fur-Seal Commission in 1896 and 1897. In 1896
I was on the islands or on the revenue cutter visiting the pelagic sealers from July 8 to
September 5. In 1897 I was on the islands, on the revenue cutter visiting pelagic
sealers and going to and from St. Paul and St. George from July 1 to August 17. The
records of the work are here, Mr. Chairman [exhibiting books].
Mr. Extiotr. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you see up there a pup tiampled to death by a
bull?
Dr. Lucas. No. (Hearing No. 12, May 16, 1912, pp. 706-719.)
DR. JORDAN CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF YEARLINGS BY THE OLD
LESSEES IN 1889, BUT HE PERMITS AND APPROVES THAT KILLING
BY THE NEW LESSEES IN 1896-97, AND EVEN WHEN SO DONE IN
VIOLATION OF LAW AND REGULATIONS.
That Dr. Jordan knew that the killing of yearlings was wrong and
injurious to the life of the fur-seal herd, he gives the following proof
of in his final report of February 24, 1898, to-wit: Speaking of the
result of the work of killing by the lessees of 1870 during the last
years of their lease, Dr. Jordan writes:
For a time these more vigorous methods had the desired effect, but the scarcity of
bachelors as a result of the decreasing birth rate made it necessary finally to lower
the age for killable seals, so as to include first, the 2-year-olds, and in the end many
of the larger yearlings, in order to secure the requisite 100,000 skins. By these
methods it happened in 1889 that practically the whole bachelor herd of 4 years
and under down to the yearlings was wiped out. The result was the abnormal drop
to 21,000 in the quota of 1890. * * #*
It is not the intention here to justify the methods of killing employed in the clos-
ing years of the Alaska Commercial Co. Such killing ought never to have been
allowed. (Fur-Seal Inves. pt. 1, 1898, p. 124.)
With this full understanding of the impropriety of killing those
small seals thus given to us by Dr. Jordan, as above quoted, this gen-
tleman actually has stultified himself by that writing as above, for he
has pee yes and licensed in 1896 and 1897 the same injurious and
legal killing. He has done so in the following report, dated Novem-
ber 1, 1897, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to wit:
Last year the hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killable seals;
during the present season a quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To get these it was
necessary to drive more frequently and cull the animals more closely than has been
904 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
done since 1889. The killing season was closed on July 27, 1896: This year it was
extended on St. Paul to August 7, and on St. George to August li. The quota to be
taken was leit to our discretion, and every opportunity was given to the lessees to take
the full product of the hauling grounds. Notwithstanding all their efforts, the quota
of 1897 shows a decrease of 30 per cent in the class of killable seals, and when we take
into account the increased number of drives, and the extension of the times of driving,
the difference between the two seasons is even greater. (Fur Seal Investigations, Pre-
liminary Report of 1897, Treas. Doc. No. 1994, p. 18, Nov. 1, 1897.)
Again, Dr. Jordan knew what yearlings were taken for skins,
for he described that taking in 1889 as follows, when reviewing the
tables of killing made by the lessees in 1889 as compared with: that
killing by them in 1890. Dr. Jordan says:
The contrast here visible between 1889 and 1890 is by no means a measure of cor-
responding decrease in the breeding herd. The fact is that the fictitious quota of
1889 was made up largely of yearlings which belonged properly to the quota of 1891.
(Fur Seal Inves., 1898, pt. 1, p. 202.)
When Dr. Jordan certified the catch of 1896 (80,000) to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury on November 7, 1896, as being made up of 3 and
2 year olds, and did not tell the truth that over 8,000 of these 30,000
skins taken by the lessees were yearlings, he knew better. (Treas.
Doc. No. 1913, p. 21.)
He knew better because the lessees did not take any smaller skins
in 1896 than they did in 1899. They took the yearlmngs or ‘small
pups” and ‘‘Ex.sm. pups”’ in 1889, just as Jordan says they did. They
took the same ‘‘Small pups” and ‘‘Ex. sm. pups”’ in 1896—8,000 of
them—and Jordan demies the fact; he denies it by ignoring it, and
asserting that ‘‘22,000 of these”’ (30,000) were 3-year-olds, “when in
truth not quite 7,500 of them were.
The London sales records, which proves the truth of Jordan’s state-
ment, that the lessees killed yearlings in 1889, also proves the untruth
of Jordan’s statement that the lessees did not kill yearlings in 1896.
They convict Dr. Jordan of deceit in the matter and of falsifying the
record of that killing in 1896 and 1897.
DR. JORDAN ATTEMPTS TO DENY THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE EARLY
ARRIVAL OF THE YEARLING SEALS ON THE HAULING GROUNDS AND
THEIR APPEARANCE ON THE KILLING GROUNDS; HE IS FLATLY CON-
TRADICTED BY RECORDS OF THE SAME.
In his final report of February 24, 1898, Dr. Jordan says:
From the killing during the present season (1896), 15,000 animals too small to kill
were turned back. As in the case of the young bulls, some of these, perhaps many,
were driven and redriven, several drives being made from each hauling ground during
the season. The actual number represented by this total of rejected animals can
not be exactly determined. From this it would seem necessary to suppose that by
no means all the younger seals appear on the hauling grounds during the killing
season. In fact, as records of the drives show that it is only aiter the middle of July
that the yearlings begin to arrive in numbers, and by the time the killing season is
over the great majority of the killable seals are secured, leaving the population of
the hauling grounds almost exclusively yearlings and 2-year-olds. (Fur Seal Inves.
pt. 1, 1898, rept. Feb. 24, p. 99.)
With the following official ‘““Records of the drives” staring Dr.
Jordan in the face, 1t seems fairly incredible that he should have
written so much untruth as above concerning them in re yearlings.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 205
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1890.
Made a drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill; killed 274; turned away 19 half-grown
bulls. As many yearlings as choice seals killed, and half as many 2-year-olds as
yearlings were allowed to return to the sea. This is a fair average of the work so far
this season. (Official Journal Chief Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St.
Paul Island, p. 239.)
Monpay, JUNE 23, 1890.
The N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill, killing 521 seals.
Seventy-five per cent of the seals driven to the village were turned back into the
sea; 10 per cent of these were 2-year-olds; balance yearlings. (Official Journal Chief
Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St. Paul Island, p. 231.)
TuESDAY, June 24, 1890.
N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Reef and Zotoi and killed 426 seals; about 65 per
cent of this drive was turned back into the sea, about all of these were yearlings.
(Official Journal Chief Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St. Paul Island,
p- 231.)
TuHuRSDAY, June 26, 1890.
The N. A. C. Co. made a drive of seals Southwest Bay and killed 117 seals; about 62
per cent of those driven were turned back into the sea; of those turned away one-half
were yearlings, one-fourth 2-year-olds, and one-fourth old bulls. (Official Journal
Chief Special Agent Chas. J. Goff, in charge of St. Pauls Island, p. 231.)
Then independent of the above official record, which not only
declares that the yearlings are out in full force as early as June 18,
on the killing grounds, driven up with the others, we have the fol-
lowing sworn proof of the unwarranted denial of Dr. Jordan «i re
early appearance of the yearlings, to wit:
Mr. Exttiorr. Now, as to vearlings on the islands. Here is an official report detailed
day after day during the killing season of 1890, put on the files of the Treasury Depart-
ment, and printed. and until the lst of December, 1907, not a line had been issued
from the Governmeni officialism in charge of this business—not a line that says a
single record of this work as to the killing on those islands in 1890 is improperly stated
here. The only objection they make to it was that I officially assumed that driving
these young and old seals hurt them. They claimed it did not hurt them, but that
it did them good. We will leave that open. But the killing has hurt them; they
admit that now officially. Let me read, on page 170:
“Monday, June 23, 1890. * * * Eleven pods of 561 animals driven up; 110 of
them killed or one-fifth taken, or 80 per cent turned away. All under 7-pound skins,
with the exception of a few wigged 4-year-olds and a dozen or two old bulls. This
ae a fair average of the whole diive to-day, some 2,500 animals, since 518 only were
taken.
“* * * Those turned away (nearly 2,000) were 95 per cent at least ‘long’ and
‘short’ yearlings.”’
That has never been disputed to this hour.
“June 21,1890. * * * At7a.m. I went down to the killing grounds and fol-
lowed the podding and clubbing of the entire drive brought up from the Reef crest
and Zoltoi Bluffs this morning. The Zoltoi pod arrived on the ground long before
the Reef pod—two hours sooner. It was made up largely of polseecatchie and
yearlings.
“* * * Seventy-five per cent of this drive was rejected. Every 3 and smooth
4 year old taken and every long 2-year-old. Nothing under or over that grade.
“The seals released this morping were 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 53 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 709 yearlings, conspicu-
ous by their white bellies.
+ * * * * * *
“June 26, 1890 (on p. 174). I walked over to the Zapadnie killing grounds this
morning, arriving there about 9 o’clock. The drivers had collected a squad of about
340 holluschickie, which were clubbed thus—total 344 number driven, and num-
ber taken, 97, or about 72 per cent unfit to take, being made up chiefly of yearlings,
‘short’ 2-year-olds, and ‘wigged’ 4-year-olds, and 5-year up to 7-year old bulls.”
206 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
I knew what I was talking about, and so did the lessees. They rejected the year-
lings and the short 2-year-olds.
“June 27, 1890. The drive to-day from Middle Hill, Tolstoi, and Bobrovia Yama
(of Tolstoi near the point) panned out as follows: Total number driven 1,652; total
number taken 394.
“‘Deduct 24 overcounted, leaves the whole number of animals driven 1,628; number
taken 394, or 78 per cent rejected. Nothing taken under a 6-pound or ‘long’ 2-year-
old skin.
Nothing was taken that day.
‘‘Sixteen of the 394 skins taken in the killing grounds, as above cited, were rejected,
in the salt house by the company’s manager because th2y were too small. They were
normal 2-y2ar-olds, 53-pound skins. Perhaps they will be glad to get them later.”
They were.
“June 28, 1890. Thesuperb sealing weather still continues. The natives are bring-
ing up a small squad from the Reef as I write (5 p. m.).
“The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive from Reef and
Zoltoi Bluffs, June 28, 1890:
‘“Whole number of animals driven, 1,417; number taken, 203, or 85 per cent
turned out. * * * Everything taken in this day’s killing above a normal 2-year-
old * * * i. e., all 6-pound skins and upward.
“June 30, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive
from Middle Hill, English Bay, Tolstoi, Lukannon, and Ketavie:
‘“Whole number of animals driven, 1,262; number taken, 203, or 844 per cent re-
jected. * * * Everything taken that was above 54-pound skin, under those of
the 5-year-olds and ‘wigged’ 4-year-olds. * * * How many of those yearlings
and ‘short’ 2-year-olds that were released this morning will again be driven before this
season ends? Nearly all of them.
* * * * 2 * *
“July 1, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive
made from every section of the reef, everything in back of Zoltoi Bluffs, Garbotch,
and the entire circuit of the reef:
‘‘Whole number of animals driven, 1,998; number taken, 245, or 89 per cent re-
jected. Last drive from this place, June 28, when 85 per cent were rejected. Every-
thing taken over a 5-pound skin and under the ‘wigged’ 4 and 5 year old pelts. Ninety
per cent of the seals rejected to-day were yearlings.”
There are no yearlings on the islands now, we are told by these gentlemen. They
have disappeared; they have gone to sea. There is no loss from pelagic sealing there
now.
‘This is the largest number yet driven in any one drive from this place thus far this
season, and the catch among the smallest. The yearlings driven before, plus the new
arrivals, are making the ratio.”’
The yearlings keep coming up and increasing this aggregate drive.
. ‘July 2, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of a drive
made from every section of Polavina and Stony Point:
‘“Whole number of animals driven, 1,929; number taken, 230, or 884 per cent reject-
ed. There were also 10 ‘‘road” and ‘‘smothered” skins, which made a total of 240
taken; last drive from this place, June 25, when 800 animals were driven and 263
taken, or 65 per cent rejected.
‘‘This drive to-day covers a whole week’s interval since the last drive from Pola-
vina, and it shows that as the season advances the numbers driven rapidly increase,
while the proportionate catch diminishes. In other words, the new arrivals, plus
those redriven, will continue to steadily swell the gross aggregate driven day by day
from now on, and not proportionately increase the catch. Rather, I believe that
the catch will markedly diminish.
‘*To-day every good 2-year-old, every 3, and every ‘‘smooth” 4-year-old was knocked
down out of the 1,929 animals; every one. Where, at this rate of killing, is the new
blood left for the rookeries now so desperately needed there? Hardly a young bull
left, between the effects of driving and the deadly club, save a few hundred of those
demoralized and worthless half bulls, which I make note of as they come up in every
drive; and these, the natives truly declare, will never go upon the rookeries.
‘Thus far this season every seal that is eligible in weight, froma ‘“‘long” 2-year-old
male up to 5-year-olds, has been ruthlessly slain within a few days after its appearance
on these desolate hauling grounds of St. Paul Island. They were asruthlessly knocked
down last year, and to-day the yearlings and everything above to 5-year-olds would
be knocked down did not the new $10.22 tax per sealskin save their lives.”’
They were afraid to take these yearlings, and they gave orders to let them alone.
They said, ‘‘They will not pay our taxes and our expenses.”
|
> '
‘
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 <O00) LOO Vee eames seme ee es aeeiek 14, 888 7, 000
TS 7/_ oe Ue Ee ae ee 20, 762 SAOOOH IMTOO Smee Seer os Ey ks ey Khe he 14, 965 6,500
Lino eae ee eee Cae oe 18, 032 25000) ll WRB ee sSadessonsanhecosodens- >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 <n 2b ees ie ae oe eee ee 5 11
(o\ex. small pups; Tobbed: 2. - 2. s-ccasc-4 ceneeinses te aoe oes ae 5 3
36 faulty.
12,732 average based on December, 1909, prices 144/.
5 small.
21 large pups.
48 middling pups.
94 small pups.
18 ex. small pups.
2 faulty.
188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/.
12,920
Subject to recount.
Mr. Parron. You mean it is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the
selling in London?
Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the
skins for the United States Government.
Mr. Patron. And they pay on that weight?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 239
Mr. Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those
weights.
Mr. Exxiorr. Right there I want to interpose the statement that they do not weigh
those skins to classify them. They measure them. (Hearing No. 6, p. 291.)
In this distinct and positive statement the United States Commis-
sioner of Fisheries tells the committee that the London classification
of its 12,920 fur-seal skins, which have been taken on the seal islands
during its season of 1910 and sold in London December 16, 1910—that
this classification is done there by the weights of the skins.
He does this in full personal knowledge of the fact that those Lon-
don agents have mee those skins by measurement, so as to get at
their size; that the buyers care nothing for the weight of the salt cured
skins—they are buying the skins according to their size.
That he made this statement to the committee for the purpose of
deceiving them, and that he knew better, for he had personally at-
tended the classification and selling of those skins in London Decem-
ber 16, 1910, is attested by his own official record, as follows:
[Appendix A, p. 1009.]
Lonpon, December 16, 1910.
Hon. CHartes NAGEL,
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: I have just wired you the total results of the fur-seal-
skin sale which has just taken place:
“Conditions considered, have had a remarkably successful sale. Total amount,
89,424 pounds.”’
When we take into consideration the average grading of the skins as compared
with last year, there is a loss of only about 3 per cent.
I am inclosing you a copy of the advertisements for the year 1909 as well as for
1910. I think it 1s well to have these for office reference. I had hoped for a larger
amount, but, after conference with the fur dealers of London, was prepared to receive
10 per cent or even 15 per cent less than last year’s prices, and I think, as I have
said above, that we had a very successful sale.
I leave the latter part of the week for Germany and will go direct to Bad Nauheim.
I regret to say that my condition has not improved.
ishing you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year,
Iam, with renewed assurances of my highest personal esteem and regard,
Very truly, yours,
Geo. M. Bowers.
Here he tells the Secretary that he has been busy with the buyers
and that he had also been busy with the Lampsons, who did the clas-
sifying and selling of those small skins to the buyers aforesaid, as his
own agents.
That a man of common sense and average ability should personally
attend this sale as the representative of the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor and then make that dogmatic statement of untruth in
good faith as to the classification of the skins, as above, is simply
unbelievable; he knew better; he never had a buyer tell him or his
own agent tell him that untruth which he tells to the committee
under oath.
_In further proof of the personal understanding which Mr. Commis-
sioner Bowers had of what ordered the conduct of the sale of those
skins, the additional letters are submitted. It is fairly incredible to
believe that a subject which affected the prices of his skins—the
‘6 ee Oy a : C
grading” of them as he calls it, or the classification of them—was
940 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
not fully explained to him by his agent, the Lampsons, and those
buyers, whom he speaks of, to wit:
[Appendix A, pp. 1009-1010.)
Lonpon, December 16, 1910.
Hon. Cartes NAGEL, .
Secretary of Commerce qnd Labor,
Washington, D. C., U.S. A.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: Herewith inclosed you will find catalogues showing the
prices received at the auction this day for the fur seals of Alaska and elsewhere, and
when we take into consideration the number of skins offered for sale and the climatic
as well as financial conditions, I think we have had, as far as our skins are concerned,
an exceptionally good sale.
Lot No. 1 sold at a decline of 20 shillings as compared with last year—this gave me
the blues. The second lot, 400 large pups, sold at a decline of 9 shillings; this of
course was better, but when 6,200 smal! pups and extra small pups sold at a loss of
1 shilling as compared with last year, this very much improved the situation. Un-
fortunately our skins did not grade so well as heretofore. You will observe that the
664 skins of the North American Commercial Co. did not bring prices nearly so good
as those gotten by the Government. You will further observe that the skins of the
northwest coast sold at an average of at least 74 per cent less as compared with the
prices received by us, notwithstanding the fact that the skins of the northwest coast
this year graded a little better than usual.
Under the terms of the sale a remittance by C. M. Lampson & Co. will be made on
December 30. I shall leave London on the 19th, and my address for the next three
weeks will be Hotel Kaiserhof, Bad Nauheim, Germany,
With assurances of personal esteem and regard, believe me,
Sincerely,
Geo. M. Bowers.
Lonpon, December 19, 1910.
Hon. CHartes NAGEL,
Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C., U.S. A.
Dear Mr. Secretary: Herewith inclosed you will find several statements for
record in the department, one showing the number of skins sold, the prices realized
for each lot, and the average weight of the skins; then another statement showing by
whom purchased. I also inclose a report showing the prices received for all other
skins sold, with last year’s prices, for the purpose of comparison; also a statement
issued by C. M. Lampson & Co., as well as two other statements, one by Phillips,
Pollitzer & Co., and the other by Blatspiel, Staup & Haycock, the principal London
buyers of the Alaskans. These reports will show the situation so far as London and
the Continent are concerned. It pleases me to state that the gross proceeds from the
sale for the 12,920 skins is £89,624 16s., an advance of £200 more than the amount given
in my cablegram. The amounts received, as shown in this report, differ some little
from the statement I sent you some days ago, but on the whole our Government gains
an additional £200.
Your cablegram of congratulations was greatly appreciated, and I feel much relieved
after a hard year’s arduous labor. I leave for Berlin to-night, and will proceed from
there to Bad Neuheim immediately after Christmas and make a strenuous endeavor to
recuperate, or, in other words, to recover my health.
With the compliments of the season, believe me,
Sincerely, Gro. M. Bowers.
P. S.—In a personal letter to Mr. Cable I stated I would send him a list of pur-
chasers. This is found in a catalogue which I have marked ‘‘Document 4,”’ My
address will be Hotel Kaiserhof, Bad Neuheim.
That Mr. Commissioner Bowers knew better, that he had full
knowledge of the fact that those skins had been classified by measure-
ment in London, is given below by the sworn admission of his own
agent, W. I. Lembkey.
Mr. Youne. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green
skins on the islands, and then measure them in the markets in London. What is
your purpose in weighing, and what is their purpose in measuring?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 241
Mr. Lemspxey. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within
the weights prescribed by the regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and
minimum weights. These weights are 5 pounds
Mr. Youna. Does that relate to the question of age?
Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds. :
Mr. Youne. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose
in measuring?
Mr. Lempxer. They measure them, I fancy
Mr. Youne. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too?
Mr. Lempxey. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on
the animal.
Mr. Youne. They care nothing about the question of age there?
Mr. Lempxey. Nothing at all.
Mr. Youne. That is all I care toask. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448, 449.)
= * * *
Mr. Bowers. Mr. Lembkey is not a member of the advisory board, but isa member
of the fur-seal board.
Mr. Extrorr. We want that distinctly understood. We want to find out where he
comes in, and where to put the responsibility. Is not Mr. Lembkey responsible for
anything? Did he not get his orders from you?
Mr. Bowers. He did, under those instructions.
Mr. Extiorr. Does he not get his orders from that advisory board, through you?
(Hearing No. 2, pp. 116-117.)
Mr. Bowers. He gets his orders from me as approved by the Secretary.
Mr. Extiotr. And he is bound by them?
Mr. Bowers. He is.
Mr. Exiiotr. Then, Mr. Chairman, I want Mr. Bowers to explain right here why
Mr. Lembkey, introduced by Secretary Nagel, said on February 4 last, at a hearing of
the conservation committee of the United States, on page 10, in answer to this question:
“The CHarrMan. How many did you kill last year?
““Mr. Lempxkey. We killed 12,920.
““Q. What was the youngest seal you killed; what age?”
Mr. Bowers. Where is that?
Mr. Extrorr. I hope you will get that. I want Mr. Bowers to get these questions.
Nothing would please me less than to appear as a prosecuter here, because I am not.
I want to get at the facts. On page 10 the chairman of this Senate committee asked
certain questions of Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Lembkey is introduced to that committee by
Secretary Nagel as the responsible agent of the Department of Commerce and Labor
to speak for him; and for you, of course.
“The Cuarrman. How many did you kill last year?
“Mr. Lempxey. We killed 12,920.
““Q. What was the youngest seal you killed; what age?
““A. Two years old.”’
There we have the official statement of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
without doubt or equivocation, without any question of law or anything, given to the
Senate committee, that they had killed none of those seals, 12,920, under 2 years of age.
Are you ready to certify to that statement here before this committee?
Mr. Bowers. That is Mr. Lembkey’s statement.
Mr. Exuiotr. No; but, my dear sir, he is your agent. I want you to certify to it.
Mr. Case. Do you want him to certify to it, or are you asking whether he does?
Mr. Exxiorr. Excuse me if I am arguing, but I want to get at the responsibility for
this statement. If Mr. Lembkey is irresponsible, why was he brought up there? If
he is responsible, why are you evading the responsibility?
Mr. Bowers. I am not evading anything; I want that distinctly understood.
Mr. Extiorr. Then you certify to that statement?
Mr. Bowers. I do not have to certify to any statement made by another man.
That is his statement. That is the statement as it comes to the Bureau of Fisheries
from the officials. That is an official record as it comes to me.
We now come into the immediate relation of the United States
Bureau of Fisheries to this fur-seal business of the Government.
When Dr. Jordan and his associated scientists, Stejneger, Lucas, and
Townsend finished their work of completely approving the most
rigorous and injurious driving and close killing of the seals by the
lessees, they then published, in 1898, this approval in their final report
on fur-seal investigations; the lessees then determined to have a
5349014 16
949 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
continuation of such “scientific”? indorsement. Prior to this the
naturalists, generally, had secured the insertion of a clause in an
appropriation bill as early as March 3, 1893 (27 Stat., 583), which
reads as follows:
The Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is authorized and required to investigate
under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and when so requested report
annually to him regarding the conditions of seal life upon the rookeries of the Pribilof
Islands; and he is also directed to continue the inquiries relative to the life history
and migrations of the fur seals frequenting the waters of Bering Sea.
This caused the sending of several naturalists to the islands in
1894 and 1895 on that errand. The lessees had not found any of
them at all troublesome, and when Dr. Jordan closed his initial service
to them in 1897 as a scientist, they resolved to have no succeeding
naturalist get up there who might not be as tractable.
So, the astute and active lessee, United States Senator Elkins, in
the full determination to have a man at the head of this Bureau of
Fisheries on whom he could rely, secured the appointment and the
confirmation of one George M. Bowers, as United States Commissioner
of Fisheries, in February, 1898.
Here was a man notoriously ignorant of every detail of this office,
and yet selected and confirmed in spite of the law which declares
that he ‘“‘must be learned as a fish culturist,’’ and ‘“‘an educated
scientist’’—just because lessee Elkins wanted it done for this per-
sonal reason. And that man Bowers came before the House com-
mittee with a pitiful attempt to tell them that Elkins did not order
his appointment and confirmation, to wit:
Mr. Bowers. I never asked a single man in the United States to indorse me for the
Commissionership of Fisheries.
Mr. TowNseEnpD. If you will impart information to this committee as to how to secure
such good positions without indorsements, it will be interesting.
Mr. Bowers. I had the indorsements for the collectorship of Senator Elkins and
then——
Mr. TOWNSEND (interposing). That is all right. Now, we will go on from that point.
Senator Elkins, at the time he indorsed you for that office, and when he found——
Mr. Bowers (interposing). Not for that office; he did not indorse me for the col-
lectorship at all.
Mr. TowNnsEND. Did he indorse you for this pusition of Commissioner of Fisheries?
Mr. Bowers. I presume he did, as did the entire West Virginia delegation, as well
as ex-Senator Faulkner, at that time a member of the Senate.
Mr. TowNsEND. I have no doubt they were perfectly justified in doing so, because
you have the reputation of being a very skillful and useful man, and there is no re-
flection implied in this question. I am simply trying to get before the committee
whom your political backers were.
Mr. Bowers. Well, Senator Elkins and I were warm friends.
Mr. TownseEND. And he was at that time a stockholder, was he not, in the company
that had the contract for the seal killing?
Mr. Bowers. I was not aware of that, sir, and I am not to-day. And I never heard
that Senator Elkins held an interest in the seal contract until I was told so on the
islands in 1906.
Mr. McDermorr. What did they say to you at that time?
Mr. Bowers. I was told by one of the employees of the North American Commercial
Co., when I was there with Mr. Sims, that ‘‘ your Senator from West Virginia is a stock-
holder in this company.”’
Mr. TownsEND. That was before the transfer was made to your department that
you became aware of that?
Mr. Bowers. Well, I was told that at that time.
Mr. TownseEND. Now, that is satisfactory. You took charge of the affairs of this
ee something like 15 or 16 months before the expiration of the contract, did you
not
Mr. Bowers. Yes; something like that. (Hearing No. 2, pp. 70, 71, June 9, 1911,
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 243
By getting their own man into this office, armed with that “duty”’
and authority of making “‘scientific”’ studies of that herd, and of the
lessees’ work annually, it became easy for Mr. Senator Elkins and
Mr. D. O. Mills to control that arm of inquiry, and report. Then,
with that “scientific”? control on the one hand, with the control of
the civil agents on the other, the lessees had nothing to concern them-
selves about over reports that might be annually filed in the Treasury
Department, or in the Bureau of Fisheries.
The results that followed amply paid them for their trouble in
getting this unfit man Bowers installed. They kept him there, too,
in spite of protests and proof of his unfitness piled mountain high.
The lessees also had another object in sight, and Bowers was the
man to reach it for them. They knew that they would have great
opposition to a renewal of their lease in 1910, so they banked upon
Bowers in this office as being able to secure that renewal for them.
In order that Bowers should not be hampered, they persuaded
Theodore Roosevelt and Oscar Straus to put all of the details of this
fur seal business into Bowers’s control by an Executive order dated
December 28, 1908, as follows, to wit.
DECEMBER 28, 1908.
To the Commissioner of Fisheries, the agents charged with the management of the seal
Jisheries in Alaska, and others concerned:
By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Revised Statutes of the United
States, sections 1973 and 161, and by the organic act creating this department, ap-
proved February 14, 1903, it is hereby ordered that, subject to the direction of the
head of the department, the Commissioner of Fisheries shall be charged with the
general management, supervision and control of the execution, enforcement, and
administration of the laws relating to the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska; that the agents
charged with the management of the seal fisheries of Alaska, together with such other
persons in the employ of the department as may hereafter be engaged in the execution
oi the said laws, shall be subject to the immediate jurisdiction and control of the Com-
missioner of Fisheries, and shall, in addition to the duties required of them by law,
perform such other duties as he may, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce
and Labor, prescribe; that the appropriations for ‘‘Salaries, agents at seal fisheries in
Alaska,’”’ 1908 and 1909, ‘‘Salaries and traveling expenses of agents at seal fisheries
in Alaska,’’ 1908 and 1909, and ‘‘Supplies for native inhabitants, Alaska,’’ 1908 and
1909, shall be expended under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Fisher-
ies, subject to the supervision of the Secretary; and that all records, papers, files,
printed documents and other property in the department appertaining to the fur-serl
fisheries of Alaska shall be transferred from their present custody to the custody of the
Bureau of Fisheries.
Oscar 8. Straus, Secretary.
The story of how United States Commissioner of Fisheries, George
M. Bowers, used every arm of his office to secure a renewal of this
lease for his patrons, is one of the most remarkable exhibitions, self-
confessed, of arrogant, official malfeasance that has ever been put
into sworn testimony; and how he failed is equally interesting. It
is all set forth in Hearing No. 3 (pp. 147-162, July 6, 1911, H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Coni. & Labor). A brief excerpt of this amazing testi-
mony is given below:
Mr. Exuiorr. And I want Mr. Bowers to pay some attention to this, because this
ne important, at least some good lawyers have told me that it is very important to
i1m—
‘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.)
244 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
““December 7, 1909. This letter from the ‘bureau,’ dated December 16, 1909, and
signed by Barton W. Everman, urges Bowers to send agents to New York, there to
‘educate’ the Camp Fire Club and induce them to agree to the ‘bureau’s idea of
renewing the lease,’ as follows:
“‘HxHibit No. 6.
‘“DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
‘““BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
‘“ Washington, December 16, 1909.
‘“THE COMMISSIONER:
“‘The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Camp Fire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation
designed to prevent the re-leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on
the islands for 10 years except for natives’ food, and to secure the opening of negotia-
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon,
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904.
“‘As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent
killing and the renewal of the seal island lease, the advisability is suggested of having
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members
of the Camp Fire Club as they may be acquainted with with the object of correctly
informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and of securing
its cooperation to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this bureau !
‘“The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated.
‘“BarTON W. EVERMANN.
““Exbibit No. 7. Being the official letter of ‘George M. Bowers, commissioner,’ to
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease and giving the reasons of the writers for
such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor, president N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January
27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for ‘fur seal advisory board,’ dated January 31, 1910.
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A. C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as follows:
X. When Cleveland replaced Harrison, March 4, 1893, it became
necessary to put a Democrat in the place of chief special agent in
charge of the seal islands, Joseph Stanley-Brown.
So Joseph B. Crowley was appointed chief; First Assistant Agent
Murray, Republican, was dropped for James Judge, a Democrat; but
the lessees were careful of ther man, Murray. They had him made
a salmon fishing inspector for Alaska, without a moment’s loss of
time.
Then when McKinley came in, March 4, 1897, it was in turn neces-
sary to drop Crowley, Democrat, and back came the subservient
Murray to the office of chief special agent.
Murray died in Colorado October, 1898, and was succeeded by
John M. Morton, who was as subservient in turn as Murray had been.
Morton died on St. Pauls Island July, 1900, and he was succeeded by
one W. J. Lembkey, as chief, who has been equally subservient to the
1 COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
HOusE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, June 9, 1911.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE M. BOWERS, COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES.
Mr. BowERs. No new lease was made, but the killing was done under governmental supervision.
Mr. TOWNSEND. You will be questioned about that later. After the first suggestion of this bill you know
of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legislation? ae
Mr. BowERs. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legislation. _
Mr. TOWNSEND. And if any evidence should be introduced to the contrary, it would surprise you?
Mr. BoWERs. So far as I am concerned it would, yes; and as far as I am concerned it would the Bureau
of Fisheries and the department. (Investigation of fur-seal industry of Alaska, p. 73.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 245
seal contractors, and has been steadily in office as such ever since, up
to August 1, 1913. We will later have to consider Lembkey again.
But this selection and appointment of these Government agents by
the lessees is not all that those contractors have had to do in the
premises; it was not enough; so they have had that particular ‘‘back-
room’ officialism in the Treasury Department, which is the direct and
immediate annex to the Secretary’s office; also in their control and
hire, because it was necessary that the reports and work of these res-
ident seal-island agents be insured of a friendly interpretation and
official reception in the United States Treasury Department, so that
whenever any ‘‘impertinent”’ or pertinent questions were asked of the
Secretary as to the conduct of the lessees or the public business on
the islands, either by citizens or by Congress, no “‘official’’ blunder as
to a proper answer would be made; it has been managed as follows:
A standing order of the department put this seal island business,
reports, ete., all in the care of the “‘chief special agent in charge of
the islands’’; the then ‘‘assistant agents’ were all ordered to report
to him; he then used his discretion as to how much or how little of
these reports he was to use or forward to the department; then, when
this report of the chief special agent in charge of the seal islands was
sent to the Treasury Department it was received and filed in the
‘“‘office of the chief special supervising agent’’; to this man the Sec-
retary of the Treasury looked for all the official information and
advice he had at his command; and from this man the Secretary
always received the draft of that part of his annual report to Congress
which related to the seal islands of Alaska.
Therefore, the importance to the lessees of having such a man in
their control is easy to understand; they got him. When Special Agent
Elliott came down from his investigation into the condition of affairs
on the islands, September 7, 1890, he found that a man named A. K
Tingle was this ‘chief supervising special agent.’’ He was a cousin
of George R. Tingle, the superintendent of the lessees, and “‘ general
manager” on the islands. Of course Elliott found him “deeply
interested,” but, in favor of the public interests? Not at all.
Then when Cleveland came in, a ‘“‘ Democrat” was put in Tingle’s
place, and he (Tingle) went into the hire of the Sugar Trust. When
Cleveland went out, of course, a ‘“‘Republican”’ had to come back
into this “office” of ‘“‘chief supervising special agent,’’ and one W. 8S.
Chance, a docile tool of the lessees, took that place. Elliott calls him
a ‘‘tool,”’ with all of the proof of that fact in his hands.
With this official machinery in their hands, and in complete control
of it, the lessees have actually written every annual report of the Sec-
retary of the Treasury to Congress on the condition of this fur-seal
herd, and their own conduct, since 1890, up to the hour that this
business went to the Department of Commerce and Labor, July 1,
1903.
XI. We pass now from the ‘‘divided”’ control of the lessees to the
single control of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries. Do we find any
improvement? No, if anything, it became quite as bad; fully as
much so.
The moment the renewal of the lease was defeated, March, 1910
and the lessees put out of business, these scientists of the Bureau of
Fisheries resolyed to have the sealskin business continued just the
246 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
same, only they would do it themselves. The work of slaughtering
seals in 1910 was, therefore, taken up and pushed as hard, and close
by them on the islands, as it had been by the greedy lessees in 1909.
Vigorous protests were made Secretary Nagel by good citizens, but
without the least avail. He had determined to continue the ‘“‘ benevo-
lent” killing by the lessees, so as to appear ‘‘regular”’ in his indorse-
ment of that injurious work when backing those butchers during the
lease. He stimulated Dr. Jordan and his old “‘scientific”’ authorities
who had shielded that illegal work of the lessees since 1896 to again
come forward and deny this improper killing and vouch for its con-
tinuation in 1910 and 1911, under United States Commissioner
Bowets’s and Mr. Lembkey’s direction, as being done wholly right in
every respect.
The proclamations by Jordan and his subordinate scientists, were
used by Secretary Nagel as his righteous, sensible warrant for killing
“small” seals; that ‘‘it was necessary for the good of the herd,” ete.
This stirred up an investigation into that killing, by order of Con-
ress in May, 1911, and the following salient evidence of an organ-
ized attempt to deceive the Committee on Expenditures in the De-
partment of Commerce and Labor by the scientists associated with
the bureau, and Dr. Jordan’s commission, known as the ‘advisory
board,”’ was quickly exhibited.
This attempt to deceiwe the committee was made with reference to—
First. The regulations of the department governing the taking of
seals and their skins.
Second. The classification of these skins when taken.
Third. The behavior of breeding fur-seal bulls.
1. With regard to the law and regulations which governed the
taking of fur seals on the islands, the Bureau of Fisheries prepared
an elaborate statement, and presented it under oath to the com-
mittee, and in that statement made the following distinct, and spe-
cific false, and improper denial of the ‘‘Carlisle rules” issued Ma 14,
1896, and quoted above under Section VI, to wit:
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, April 19, 1912.
The committee met at 10.30 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives McDermott, Young, McGuire, and Patton.
Testimony of Barton W. Evermann.
The witness was sworn by the chairman.
The CuarrMAN. Doctor, you may state your official position.
Dr. EverMANN. My official position is assistant in charge of the Alaska fisheries
service, in the Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce and Labor.
The CHarrMAN. Now, if you desire, you may proceed to submit whatever facts you
have for the consideration of the committee.
Dr. EVERMANN. * *
2. The second charge is that at least 128,478 yearling male seals were killed by the
lessee from 1890 to 1909, both inclusive, contrary to law and the regulations.
_ In answer to this charge it should be sufficient to say that the law has never made
it illegal to kill yearling male seals; nor has it ever been contrary to the regulations
to kill yearling male seals, except in the seasons of 1904 and 1905, as is shown by the
regulations for the various years to which I have called your attention. Therefore,
even if 128,478 yearling male seals have been killed since 1899 (which is not admitted)
they could not have been killed illegally, because there was no law against killing
yearling male seals, and there has been no regulation against killing yearling male
seals, except in 1904 to 1909.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 247
The fact that the “Carlisle rules” pr siiaine the killing of year-
lings in distinct terms, were issued May 14, 1896, and duly pub-
lished and recorded on the Seal Islands is here vainly denied, and
concealed from the committee in a carefully written statement pre-
ared by the Bureau of Fisheries, and given to it under oath; and,
the fact that those orders of Secretary Carlisle have never been
amended or revised until the ‘‘ Hitchcock rules” of 1904 were ordered,
is also concealed from the committee by that false statement.
2. With regard to the classification of these fur-seal skins when
taken on the islands, and then shipped to London for sale, there,
the Bureau of Fisheries made a series of statements when first before
the committee which were found later to be entirely false, and which
said Fisheries Bureau had to admit were such.
When the question was first directly put to George M. Bowers,
United States Commissioner of Fisheries, as to how these skins taken
under his orders on the Seal Islands, were classified, so as to show
their sizes and ages in London, he said (Hearing No. 3, p. 128, June
28, 1911, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor):
Mr. Townsenp. I will examine you now as to the killing of seals after the expira-
tion of this lease and when the killing was made, as it has been called here by the
Government. The report shows that in the year 1910, 12,920 seals were killed, and
the evidence before the committee is that of those 8,000 were yearlings.
Mr. Bowers. Well, that evidence is false.
Mr. Townsenp. 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 4%
pounds.
C. M. Lampson & Co., London, 19th Nov., 1910.
Assoriment of Alaska salted fur sealskins for account of United States Government,
Department of Commerce and Labor.
[New York, Ck. 1/228.]
Lbs. Ozs
Fg SULLA LG se a Se SR ga er ree aie a aR aay SRE oN soa 15
PEELED DUPGh son eee se ae ane ee RS Ar RLS art Eee teal 2
ear dlinp IpUpPSHEs. Ses Ys Le eR es a ee 6 7
Aeeoo small pupsesssessea 2-2. 54 2 BES ea ERG ee ete Beas ke 5 12
mcpprese sinall pups asa ce co i ee IGE Se Ae Py EEE 5 5
LATE (are ore a TS 0 0 Si ae AR ae aca te Se aa ae i ee se ah 4 10
PARTLOW Sate see ar iet Ate P RR ade Rey LE LANES POE ae TMC k th Ss ema 7 11
HSRLATO CHS eLO, Winans ror.) te ee ee eee Net SET REE. DN NG Heh it nea LE Ve 6 9
EEA CTE PUPS, LOW 2s. 5, cS ee eerisore Ae ear ae ope: Se SER eee 6 1
AS MUNAIRICTUIMEY ENDS: LO Wale tee toe a ae ee a OE, he oo iD Sy ian eo 5 ¥
rs Ee TUT La 6 OV a a Va a I lle yb lca 5 0
GSI AMC Ie sere Sek UIs Saree Hoe hs Mada Cee, ONIN a 2
Bik, Lage TASH SL Sepa a= nA a ee ee i NI eS oR 6 13
PAO MAA ee Pet PSs Clib= 22 Pests oe eae BR Oe 6 2
Lili ai a iA a(E FCS be EO hc es Cone esp, ate pape NAN: tn lia es OUR CS 5 6
RC CRSLH TRUST ILISSLCUIL eet a Pees oe Ma NI a ah he MO yi Noa WL cL ee 4 15
isa eae OC ase tye tee Las ioe Rien aati Vrain Sysyey tea! Jd ea eH Hf 0
25 AGBY [TLS CBU erect Sno ere AOD tan AME aS RA Rae 6 14
195 middling BUDS EU D DEO crea es Sat tate pe eer et oak Mant ai 6 6
YAO Sena Pipsy Tub Ves: Ske ss Lee eee eee eee al de cae cebee sed 5 11
75 ex. small pups, rubbed...... Per Nh Meee Se Sands er ath. AUST Oe 5 3
36 faulty.
12,732 average based on December, 1909, prices 144/.
248 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
5 small.
21 large pups.
48 middling pups.
94 small pups.
18 ex. small pups.
2 faulty.
188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/.
12,920
Subject to recount.
(Hearing No. 6, p. 291, July 27, 1911, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com.
and Labor.)
Mr. Parron. You mean ii is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the sell-
ing in London?
Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the
skins for the United States Government.
Mr. Parron. And they pay on that weight?
a Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those
weights.
Mr. Euiott. Right there I want to interpose the statement that they do not weigh
those skins to classify them. They measure them. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 374-375.)
Mr. Lemsxey. These skins which were sent to London, during the years 1909 and
1910, were weighed by the factors after their arrival in London and the weights found
to correspond with those taken on the island. As this factor, Lampson & Co., is essen-
tially a disinterested person, being concerned not the least with the question of weights
or regulations, but wholly with the sale of the skins and the payments therefor, their
verification of these weights may be taken as conclusive of their accuracy.
So far, therefore, as concerns compliance with the regulations and the law in the kill-
ing of male seals, no malfeasance can be proven, because not only the records of the de-
partment but the weights of the same skins in London, taken by an independent and
responsible body of experts, prove that the limits of weight laid down by the instruc-
tions of the department have been complied with as closely as it is possible for human
agency to do so. The weights of skins taken on the islands show this, and further-
more these weights have been verified in London by an independent and responsible
body of men. $
Here is the man who has been placed in full charge of this public
business, the commissioner himself, under cath, actually swearing to
a deliberate falsehood of his own invention. He swears that these
skins, which have been taken under his erders, are sold in London
by weight. What was this man’s object in so testifying?!
To. conceal the fraud of takmg yearling sealskins on the islands
which weigh only 44 pounds each, clean skinned, as the work was
done by different men and at different times, this weight was raised
by blubber to 5, 54, 6, 63, 7, and 8 pounds.
The cemmittee has under its control a series of 400 sealskins taken
in 1913 just as these skins were taken and sold in 1910. Their
1 That Mr. Bowers had full knowledge of the fact that he was deceiving the committee is given by his own
associate and subordinate, most unwillingly, to the committee, and goes completely to declare the proof
of Mr. Bowers’s possession of guilty knowledge and use of it to deceive. Chief Special Agent Lembkey
swears:
Mr. YounG. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green skins on the islands and
then measure them in the markets in London. What is your purpose in weighing, and what is their pur-
pose in measuring.
Mr. LEMBKEY. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within the weights pre-
scribed by ey regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and minimum weights. Those weights
are 5 pounds
Mr. YOuNG. Does that relate to the question of age.
Mr. LEMBKEY. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds. ’
Mr. YOUNG. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose in measuring .
Mr. LEMBKEY. They measure them, I faney——
Mr. YounG. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too. .
Mr. LEMBKEY. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on the animal.
Mr. YounG. They care nothing about the question of age there.
Mr. LEMBKEY. Nothing at all.
Mr. YounG. That is sllI care toask. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448, 449, Apr. 13, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Labor.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 249
exhibiticn declares every detail cf that fraudulent classification by
weight which the Bureau of Fisheries and the lessees managed so as
to falsify the returns cf their illegal killing on the islands annually
t2 the Government.
The seientists cf the Bureau cf Fisheries, who have aided Mr.
Bowers in this faise statement as to classification, and whem he cites
to the committee as his ‘‘authority”’ for making it in the following
werds, are (Hearing No. 2, p. 111, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and
Labor)—
Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting the best talent I could; I expected probable
criticism. ;
Mr. TowNnsEND. [am not-criticizing you now.
Mr. Bowers. IJ endeavored to get the best talent it was possible to get and to act
upon their advice in this fur-seal matter.
Mr. Case. Give the names of the members of the advisory board.
Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-seal
service, are as follows (Hearing No. 2, pp. 109-110):
““PUR-SEAL BOARD, BUREAU OF FISHERIES.
“‘TIn the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following:
“Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries
Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the
fur-seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and
Bering Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal.
“Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, who has been in immediate charge of the seal islands for
Many years: appointed March 22, 1899.
*““Mr. James Judge, who, as assistant agent, fur-seal service, has spent many years on
the islands; appointed April 30, 1894.
““Mr. A. B. Alexander, Chief of the Division of Statistics and Methods of the Fish-
eries, who, as fishery expert on the steamer Albatross, visited the seal islands often,
and who has made a more careful study of pelagic sealing than any other man.
“Mr. M. C. Marsh, pathologist of the Bureau of Fisheries, who spent the season of
1906 on the seal islands making a study of the seal herd.
“The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the following:
“Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of
the International Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance
of the treaty of February 29, 1892, and whose published report in four volumes is the
most comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published
on all matters pertaining to the fur seal and the seal islands. Dr. Jordan is the most
distinguished and best-known naturalist in the world.
“Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States National Museum,
for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the Fur Seal Commis-
sions of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied all the fur-seal
rookeries of Alaska, Russia, and Japan. His report on the Russian seal islands is the
most critical and thoughtful that has been written.
“Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently chief of the Biological Survey, member of the
Fur Seal Commission of 1890, and the greatest living authority on mammals.
“Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Director of the American Museum of Natural History,
member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most
discerning, and best-known naturalists.
“Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years
naturalist on the fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur Seal Commissions of
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Townsend
made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic sealing.
_ “Hon. Edwin W. Sims, United States attorney for the northern district of Illinois
in 1906, when Solicitor for the Department of Commerce and Labor spent the season
a ue seal islands, where he made a very careful study of the conditions on the
islands.
“Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock, Postmaster General, who, when chief clerk of the
Department of Commerce and Labor, had charge of the administration of the seal
service.
250 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
“Tn addition to the above the department had the advice of—
“Dr. F. W. True, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, who spent the
season of 1895 on the seal islands as a special commissioner for the Government to study
the fur seal. Dr. True is one of the most distinguished mammalogists, and has given
special attention to marine mammals.
“Mr. George A. Clark, secretary of Stanford University, who, as secretary of the Fur
Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, spent many months on the seal islands, when there
was made, under his immediate supervision, the most careful census of the fur-seal
herd that has ever been made. Mr. Clark was again on the seal islands during the
entire season of 1909, where he was sent by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as
ae expert to study the seal herd during the last year of the North American Co.’s
ease.
Here is an imposing list of names who are thus cited by Mr. Com-
missioner Bowers as being his ‘‘advisers’”’ and as the men who have
enabled him to make that false declaration of classification by weights
in Lenden (by his ‘‘loaded” green-skin weights on the islands).
What did these men do when summoned and put under oath by the
committee and questioned as to this charge made against Commis-
sioner Bowers of killing yearling seals in violation of the rules cf the
department—did they deny the charge? Ne. They all swore that
they did not know anything about it; that they did not know how
to describe the length or weight of a yearling sealskin. Witness the
following:
I. Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor (pp. 679-680, Hearing No. 11, House Committee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, May 4, 1912):
The CHatrrMaNn. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions?
Mr. Exuiorr. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. STeJNEGER. I could not tell you.
Mr. Exxiorr. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd?
Dr. SresneGER. No.
Mr. Extrorr. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling
seal as taken from the body?
Dr. STEJNEGER. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling
seal killed on the American islands.
* = - * oa * x
Mr. Extiorr. Were you in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the killing
of 12,920 seals on the seal islands in 1910?
Dr. SteyNEGER. Do you mean in personal special consultation with Mr. Bowers?
Mr. Exsiorr. Well. as a member of the board do you remember any consultation
with him about issuing those orders?
Dr. StErNEGER. No; I do not remember.
II. Dr. C. Hartt Merriam, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart-
ment of Commerce and I.abor (p. 692, Hearing No. 11):
The CHatRMAN. 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 number of the sittings of that committee, as I am
engaged in field work in the West at least half of every year, and therefore have not
been in Washington at the time most of these meetings were held.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you at the meeting of the advisory board that the previous
witness referred to in his testimony?
Dr. Merrtam. I do not remember any such meeting.
The CuarrMan. Are you a member of the board now?
Dr. Merriam. Yes.
On page 99, Hearing No. 11:
Mr. Etniorr. Doctor, while you were on the island did you ascertain the length
and weight of a yearling seal?
Dr. Merrrtam. I did not.
Mr. Exxiorr. Do you know anything about the length and the weight of a yearling
sealskin?
Dr. Merriam. Nothing.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 251
Mr. Exurorr. 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.
ie. Dr. Barton W. Evermann, member of Fur-Seal Board, Alaska Seal Fish-
eries, Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 622, Hearing No. 10):
Mr. Exxiorr. I know; I have not disputed that, but | want to find what you did
on the island. You didn’t do anything, you say.
Dr. EVERMANN. I didn’t say that.
Mr. Extrorr. You didn’t weigh or measure a seal on the islands, did you?
Dr. EvERMANN. My recollection is that I did not.
On pages 639, 640, Hearing No. 10:
Dr. EverMANN. Do you know that Mr. Fraser states that the process of dressing
skins instead of stretching them rather shrinks them?
Mr. Extiotr. 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. Exniorr. Yes.
“Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another. I measured only three.
“Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.’’
Do you dispute those measurements?
Dr. EvermMann. I do not dispute them.
On page 639, Hearing No. 10:
Mr. Exxiotr. Now, you can find exactly what was in Mr. Lembkey’s mind by turn-
ing to page 428, at the bottom of the page [reading]:
“The CHAIRMAN. What is your answer?
‘Mr. Lempxey. I certified that they were all over 2 years with the exception of
the negligible few that were taken through accident.
“Mr. Exuiorr. In the spring of 1910 you took 12,920 seals. You killed them there
under your directions, and you took the skins.
“Fhe CHarRMAN. Let him answer the question.
“Mr. LemBxey. Is that a question or a statement? He is making a statement, as
I understand it.
“The CHarRMAN Answer the question.
“Mr. LemBxey. I did.
“The CHarrMAN. That settles it.
“Mr. Exrrorr. Out of the 12,920 skins which you took through the season of 1910,
how many of them exceeded in length 34 inches?
“Mr. LemsBxey. I do not know.”’
Then he tells the committee on page 434 that 7,733 of them, according to this London
certificate, are the skins of ‘‘small pups” and ‘‘extra small pups.’’ And then he re-
news that statement on page 441 and quoted Mr. Fraser as his authority.
Dr. EvErMANN. So far as I know, Mr. Lembkey has not denied, and I can say I
have not denied, the classifications as given by Lampsons.t If hey say that there are
so many extra small pups and so many small pups, I presume that classification is
correct. I am also convinced that the statement which Lampson & Co. gave me,
that a skin 35 inches long which they certified as an extra small pup is an extra small
pup, and that the skin 374 inches long which Lampson & Co. certified to the Bureau
of Fisheries as being a small pup is a small pup skin.
Mr. Extiorr. Were they salted skins?
Dr. Evermann. Those were dressed skins.
Mr. Exxiorr. They were ‘‘doped”’ and dressed and fixed up. They were not these
skins, salted skins.
Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by ‘‘doped and dressed?’’
Mr. Exniorr. They are ‘‘stretched”’ and ‘‘doped”’ when they are dressed. The
dressers ‘‘dope” them with soap and sugar, and grease and all sorts of things; pull
and tread them backward and forward and stretch them into all sorts of shapes. That
is what they call ‘‘doping.”’
V. Dr. Charles H. Townsend, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor (pp. 736, 737, Hearing No. 12):
_ Mr. McGuuicuppy. Is there any way to determine the age of a seal from an exam-
ination of the skin after it is taken off the body?
Dr. Townsenp. Oh, yes. I think a person handling a considerable number of
them would be able to throw out the different ages.
252 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGirticuppy. There seems to have been two ways of determining the age of
a seal, one is by the measurement of the skin and the other by the weight. You are
familiar, I suppose, with both methods?
Dr. TowNnsEND. Only from hearsay. I do not know that I ever measured one or
ever weighed one.
Mr. McGitiicuppy. You have no practical information on that subject?
Dr. TowNsEND. I have no practical information on that subject. I do not remem-
ber that that matter was ever in my instructions at any time. I do not remember
that I ever went into it.
Mr. McGruuicuppy. So far as your information goes, which do you regard as the
more reliable way of determining the age of a seal, by measurement or by weight?.
Dr. TownsEND. I can not say. I have not gone into that subject.
On page 801, Hearing No. 13:
* * * * * * *
The Cuarrman. It has been suggested that I ask a few questions as to your bio-
logical knowledge, and, therefore, I proceed along that line. What have you pub-
lished officially as to the size and weight of fur-seal skins as taken on the seal islands
of Alaska?
Dr. TowNnsEND. I do not remember to have published anything on that point.
The CuHarrmMan. 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. TowNnsEND. I am not posted on the composition of that catch.
Hearing No. 14, pages 914-919, as summed up below:
IV. Dr. David Starr Jordan, president Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, etc.,
Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 580, Hearing No. 10):
Mr. Exxiorr. Are you quoting Dr. Jordan? ;
Dr. EvERMANN. I am quoting some things that Dr. Jordan has said.
Mr. Extiorr. Is Dr. Jordan a man of truth?
The CHarRMAN. You are quoting from Dr. Jordan?
Mr. Extiorr. I want to findif Dr. Jordan isa man of truth?
The CuarrMAN. That is not for the witness to determine.
Mr. Extrorr. He is assailing me in that matter and quoting Dr. Jordan.
o The-Cuarrman. The witness can not say whether he is telling the truth or whether
e 1s not.
Mr. Exxiorr. I would like to have it go in the record whether he considers Dr. Jordan
a man of truth.
The CHairMAN. The witness will proceed.
(And Dr. Evermann proceeds without being able to answer Elliott.)
VI. Dr. Frederic Augustus Lucas, member Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service,
Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 726, Hearing No. 12):
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; I find no fault with that record, either. It is exactly as I
published it nearly 40 years before. Now, Dr. Lucas, when you take the skin off that
yearling seal and salt it down, how long is it?
Dr. Lucas. Idonotknow. Ihave never measured a skin after salting.
Mr. Extrorr. You never measured it before salting, did you?
Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin before salting.
Mr. Exurorr. Neither before nor after? Then how do you know that in the killing
up there they are not killing yearling seals?
Dr. Lucas. By the weight of the skins.
Mr. Exxrorr. 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. Exutiorr. You have never seen the table of Mr. Judge?
Dr. Lucas. I presume I have seen the table, but I never noticed it.
Mr. Extiorr. Two hundred and seventy-five salted skins which he weighed shows
that a salted skin 33 inches long will weigh as much as a green skin 374 inches long.
Does that agree with your statement?
Mr. McGuire. Doctor, right there, you say sometimes——
Dr. Lucas. That is equivalent ;
Mr. Exurorr. The table states it; he (Mr. Judge) says these sizes of those skins are
not fixed by weight. :
Dr. Lucas. May I make a statement? In all these sales of skins the skins are ad-
vertised by weight and not by size. pr?
Mr. Exuiorr. Are they advertised by weight? Find an advertisement by weight in
the Lampson catalogues and you will find something I have never been able to find.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 253
Finally one man associated with these experts of Secretary Nagel’s
appointment, W. I. Lembkey, appeared. He did know what a year-
ling seal skin was, and after a determined attempt to deny that he
did, the following admission was made by him under cross-examina-
tion, to wit (Hearing No. 9, Apr. 13, 1912):
On page 443:
“Mr. Exxiotr. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken
the skin off? :
“The CHAIRMAN. How much skin is left after you have taken it off?
“Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain
amount is left on.
“Mr. Lemspxey. I stated about 3 inches.
“Mr. Erriotr. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long.
“Mr. LemsKkey. 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.”’
In this distinct affirmation and statement, 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).
With the exhibition as above, of that complete ignorance of the
‘scientists,’ we come to the testimony of the one man who directed
and did the killing, and who does knew, to wit: (Hearing No. 14, p.
905; July 25, 1912; Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.)
Mr. Lembkey having thus identified “7,733” of his 12,920 skins as ‘‘small pups”’
and ‘‘extra small pups,’’ the committee then examined him as to the lengths of those
“small pup” and “extra small pup” skins; he then testified as follows, page 441,
Hearing No. 9:
“Mr. Extiorr. I am getting at the analysis of your catch which you have given
here already. You have given in a statement here that 8,000 of them were ‘‘small”
and ‘‘extra small.”
“Mr. Lempxkey. 7,700.
“Mr. Exziott. 7,700?
“Mr. LEMBKEY, 7,733 were small and extra small pups.
“Mr. Exriotr. Mr. Fraser tells us that those seals, none of them measured more
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches.
“Mr. Lempxey. The committee can see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser states
that small pups measured 33? inches in length.’’
The CHarrmMan. What would that indicate as to age?
Mr. Exxiorr. I am coming to that
“Mr. Exriorr. From there [indicating] to there [indicating] on that diagram——
Faas EERE 33% inches in length, and extra small pups measured 30 inches
in lengtn.
“Mr. Exuiorr. Then you have some extra small pups there which makes it 8,000?
“Mr. LemBxey. Only 11 of those.
“Mr. Exriotr. It does not amount to anything.
“Mr. Lempxey. It just makes your 8,000 about 300 more than the actual number,
“Mr. Exxiorr. That is the reason I used those round numbers. It does not amount
to anything one way or the other.
“Mr. Lempxey. The actual number is 300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott.’’
Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own summary and official record of the meas-
urements of “7,733 fur seal skins,’’ which he took during the season of 1910 on the
Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that not one of them exceeds in length 34 inches.
oe fact determines them—all of them—to have been the skins taken from yearling
seals
Mr. Mappen. Let me ask you a question. According to Mr. Lembkey’s testimony
read by you, he testified that the length of a yearling would be 394 inches, and when
it was skinned the skin itself would be 364 inches. Does it always follow that a year-
ling seal measures just the same or within an inch or two of the same length?
954 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Ettrortt. I think the range is about 3 to 4 inches; a small yearling skin goes _
30 inches, a good average yearling skin 34 inches, and a “‘long’’ yearling 36 inches.
There are three grades.
Mr. Manpen. All seals are not of the same size?
Mr. Extrorr. No; but there is the general average, and you can very easily keep
within the limit. 3
3. As a warrant for the urgent need of killing annually on the
islands, practically all of the young male seals that could be secured,
the Bureau of Fisheries issued statements to the press, and made a
sworn statement as follows to the committee, April 20, 1913 (Hearing
No. 10, p. 521, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor):
6. 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 breeding herd by fighting
among themselves for possession of the cows, often tearing the cows to pieces, so injuring
them that many of their pups are still-born, trampling the helpless pups to death,
exhausting their own vitality and virility, and rendering themselves less potent than
they would be without such useless struggle—in short, causing infinite trouble and
injury to the rookeries without a single compensating advantage.
That this statement was absolutely without foundation in fact,
that it was deliberately put up to the committee to deceive, and so
warrant this excessive and illegal killing on the islands since 1890,
to date of its making, as above, has been made a matter of repeated
record in the hearings held from May 31, 1911, to July 31, 1912.
The spectacle of 22 ‘‘distinguished scientists’? being invoked by
the Bureau of Fisheries to sustain that untruthful statement, when
each and every one of those ‘‘authorities’”? have never given out a
word touching it, in all of their writing and talking, that even faintly
asserts the same,
Nothing of the kind has ever been witnessed on the breeding
rookeries by any competent authority, and nothing of the kind ever
will be, since it is not the habit of these animals to ‘‘tear the cows to
pieces,’’ and “‘trample the helpless pups to death.”
All of this fighting between the bulls takes place, and is over prac-
tically, every season, long before the cows arrive; it was accurately
observed and published by Elliot 40 years ago. (See Mono. Seal
Islands, 1874-1882.)
The foregoing briefed selections from the sworn testimony cited,
declares that a combination has existed between the officials of the
Seal Islands and the lessees’ agents from 1891 to 1909, which was con-
tinued in Washington between said contractors and the Bureau of
Fisheries to deceive the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce
and the House committee.
It declares the fact that this officialism and the lessees have not
succeeded in deceiving the committee, and the committee is fully
warranted in asking the House to approve its findings of fact and
recommendations as set forth in its report, No. 1425, on Jan. 31, 1913.
=
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 255
DR. DAVID STARR JORDAN AND HIS ASSOCIATE ‘‘SCIENTISTS”’ STEJ-
NEGER, LUCAS, TOWNSEND, AND EVERMANN CONSPIRE WITH THE
LESSEES (LIEBES, ELKINS, AND MILLS) TO CONCEAL THE FACT THAT
THIS KILLING ON THE ISLANDS WAS RAPIDLY DESTROYING THE
FUR-SEAL HERDS THEREON, AS SAID LESSEES WERE PROSECUTING
THAT SLAUGHTER, 1896-1910, INCLUSIVE.
Dr. Jordan deliberately falsifies the Russian records and the rec-
ords of the slaughter by the lessees, 1896-97, to shield those public
enemies and enable them to continue their illegal and ruinous work.
(Hearing No. 2, pp. 65, 66, June 8, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. & Labor.)
Mr. Exzrotrr. 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 hunting fur seals in the water by white men then
was dreamed of, much less done.
In December, 1820, Gen. Yanovsky, the Imperial Russian agent, sent over to Sitka
from St. Petersburg in 1818 to examine into the question of that decline of the fur-
seal catch, then wrote to his Government that ‘‘so severe is this practice of” culling
the best males for slaughter, ‘that if any of the young breeders are not killed by
autumn, they were sure to be killed by the following spring,’’ and urged the reforma-
tion of this work then on the islands. ;
Here is this evil of overdriving and culling the herd presented and defined 50 years
before I saw it and nearly 70 years before Jordan denies its existence in 1898. Think
of it. We have sent two investigating commissions since 1890 up to our ruined fur-
seal preserves on the Pribilof Islands, one in 1891 and the other in 1896-97, and yet
in spite of this plain Russian record and my detailed and unanswerable indictment
of that particular abuse in 1890, these commissioners blindly and stupidly deny it.
They attempt to set aside the Russian record by saying that the Russians then killed
females as well as males and drove them up to the shambles in equal numbers.
The Russians did nothing of the sort. They began the season early in June by
driving from the hauling grounds precisely as we do to-day and continued so to drive »
all through the rest of the season; they never went upon the rookeries and drove off
the females; they never have done so since 1799. How then did the females get.
into their drives?
The females fell into these drives of the Russians because that work was protracted
through the whole season, from June 1 to December 1. In this way the drivers
picked up many cows after August 1 to 10 to the end of November following, since
some of these animals during that period leave their places on the breeding grounds
and scatter out over large sections of the adjacent hauling grounds, so as to get mixed
in here and there with the young males. Thus the Russians in driving across the
flanks of the breeding grounds, going from the hauling grounds, during every August,
September, October, and November, would sweep up into their drives a certain pro-
portion of female seals which are then scattered out from the rookery organization and
are ranging at will over those sections of the hauling grounds driven from. What that
proportion of this female life so driyen was, in Russian time, no man to-day can pre-
cisely determine. From the best analysis I can make of it I should say that the
Russian female catch in their drives never exceeded 30 per cent of the total number
driven at any time, and such times were rare, and that it ranged as low as 5 per cent
of female life up to the end of August annually.
Now, what does Jordan say to-day about this work which the Russians condemned
70 years ago and I in 1890?
“As land killing has always been confined to the males, and as its operations are
to-day what they have been since the herd came into the American control, except in
so far as they have been improved, this means that land killing is not and has not
been a factor in the decline of the herd.”’
I went up in 1890 prejudiced against the pelagic sealer. I am yet; but prejudice
can not make answer to the following facts:
peace I found in the place of 3,193,670 breeding fur seals and their young, only
59,455.
In the place of a round million of nonbreeding young male seals on the hauling
grounds in 1872-1874, I found a scant 100,000.
256 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
It is and was easy to account for the heavy shrinkage of life on the rookeries, for the
pelagic sealer has been hard at work on the female life since 1885-86; he has killed
in the water 75 to 80 females to every 20 males, and this proportion in killing ought to
be shown on the breeding grounds. It was.
But what about that infinitely greater loss among the young males on the hauling
grounds? If the pelagic sealer was all to blame (as Jordan says he is) for this ruin of
the herd, why should this class of seals of which he kills the fewest be the one class
most fearfully decimated.
I began on the ground in 1890 to review every season’s work on the islands since
1874. I found that in 1883 the supply of surplus male seals had so dwindled on the
islands that the driving was then extended to all of the hauling fields; that extension:
declared increased difficulty in getting the supply long before the pelagic sealer had
entered Bering Sea or had really begun destructive work in the North Pacific Ocean.
If the pelagic sealer had not caused this trouble on the islands in 1883-1887, of get-
ting the full supply of killable young male seals, what had? An epidemic or disease?
No, not a trace of it. Then there remained but two reasonable answers; either too
many seals were annually killed by the lessees, or the method of driving to cull the
herds so driven was at fault.
The effect of killing annually 100,000 young male seals of a single high grade upon
the whole herd as begun in 1870 was an experiment. It went far beyond the Russian
limit and method, for it added a much greater danger. It called for the systematic
culling out of all the seals driven under 3 years of age and over 4 years.
This act of steadily killing every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old male that comes
up annually in the drives began in a few years to create a serious interference with that
law of natural selection in the life of the herd which enables the fur seal to be so
dominant a pinniped. This interference is at once seen by a thoughtful naturalist
when the continued culling out of the very finest young male seals from the herd
takes place annually. How long would any stock breeder keep up the standard of
his herd in this State if he annually slaughtered all of the very finest young males
that were born into it or brought into ‘it?
Yet Dr. Jordan comes forward in his final report with this plain confession of his
inability to oe well-established truth in regard to the life of wild animals. Jasten
to him (Chap. IX, p. 128):
“The whole matter (theory of overdriving) is too absurd for serious consideration,
and might be passed by with the silent contempt which it deserves were it not for
the fact that it was accepted by the British commissioners in 1891 and made the
chief foundation of the British contention before the Paris tribunal of arbitration.’’
Yet, curiously enough, Dr. Jordan, on page 120, immediately preceding this dog-
matic deduction, cuts all the ground out from under his own feet in the following
statement:
‘“But suppose the killing was continued through a series of years, every 3-year-old
being ested: the reserve would in time be cut off and the stock of breeding bulls
die out. Itis impossible to say how long it would take to produce this effect, because
we do not know the length of the life of a bull. We may infer, however, that it is
not less than 15 years, and therefore the injurious effects of this excessive killing,
begun in any given year and continued indefinitely, would not be seen within 10
years at least.”’
This he publishes under the caption of ‘‘A hypothetical case.”
It is not hypothetical. It is the real story of the driving and killing on the islands
from 1880 up to 1890. During all those years I know, from the records of the work
and the direct personal testimony of the men who did the work, that they never allowed
a 3-year-old seal to escape that they could get. That in 1883 they first began to
fall behind in their run of 3-year-old seals from the hunting grounds of 1872-1874,
which had so abundantly supplied them. Then they began to extend their driving
to the hitherto untouched hauling grounds of the islands, until by 1896 they were
driving from every nook and corner on the islands where a young male seal hauled
out, and by 1889, in spite of the frantic exertions that they made, they got less than
one-quarter of their quota of 3-year-old skins. They had to make it up in yearlings
and ‘‘short” 2-year-olds for that year.
In the face of this positive truth about the work of 1889, which appears in my
report of 1890, Dr. Jordan, in 1898, makes the following strange blunder of statement:
“To destroy this class (3-year-olds) or any considerable number of them would at once
weaken the herd. But there would be no object in such killing, and it has never
been thought of” (p. 120).
Never been thought of. Why, it was the sole aim and thought of the land butchers
to get every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old seal that could be secured in the seal
drives from 1872 to 1890 When the supply of this grade dwindled on the original
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 257
sources of supply then the work of driving from the hitherto untouched reservoirs was
regularly increased with vigor and tireless persistency.
But Dr. Jordan makes his case still worse, for he goes on to say that this overkilling
is not practicable. On page 121 he declares: ‘“‘In the hypothetical case above cited
we have supposed that every male of a given age could be taken. While in theory
this is possible, in practice it could probably never be done. There are certain
hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnie Head, Otter Island, Seevitch Rock, and
Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and never have been driven. The
young males frequenting there were left undisturbed.”
This emphatic statement by Dr. Jordan is wholly and completely untrue. I have
the recora and the proof that each and everyone of these places of retreat which
he names above have been annually visited by the sealing gangs on St. Paul Island
since 1884; and these ‘‘undisturbed” seals have been regularly driven off from those
particular places, so that they would haul out on other places where they could be
taken more advantageously, or they were killed, thousands and tens of thousands of
them, right on the ground itself, notably on Southwest Point in 1884-1886. They were
entirely tunted off from other islands because the law and the lease does not allow
the lessees to kill seals there. And this particular secret work was in progress right up
to the hour when I stopped it, July 20, 1890.
Now, who has imposed upon Dr. Jordan with this bald untruth? Who hasso com-
pletely and shamefully misled him? What avails his high personal character or his
deserved reputation as a naturalist when he makes a gross and a monumental blunder
like this? A blunder upon which he bases his whole defense of an abuse which I
condemn?
It is in order now to submit the proof that Dr. Jordan has falsified
this island work as to not driving or taking of seals by the lessees to
slaughter from certain “‘reservations’’ and “inaccessible places.”’ It
is given mn Hearing No. 14, July 25,.1912 (pp. 923-924, Hl. Com.
Dept. Com. & Labor), thus:
Mr. Extiorr. One of the most flagrant and inexcusable matters of ‘‘scientific”
nalfeasance as to conduct of tl.e public business on the seal islands of Alaska is that
repeated and untruthful statement made by Dr. David Starr Jordan in 1896-1898,
and which I have made tke following review of (see pp. 66, 67, Hearing No. 2, June
9, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor), and continued by his associates ever
since, to wit:
“But Dr. Jordan makes his case still worse, for he goes on to say that this over-
killing is not practicable. On page 121 he declares: ‘In the hypothetical case above
cited we have supposed that every male of a given age could be taken. While in
theory this is possible, in practice it could probably never be done. There are cer-
tain hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnie Head, Otter Island, Seevitch Rock,
and Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and never have been driven.
The young mals frequenting there were left undisturbed.’ ”
Mr. Extrotr. [ submit herewith, appended, the following proof of that erroneous
statement mad by Dr. Jordan, as above cited, to wit:
Those ‘‘whistles” used on St. Paul, in 1890, and for driving off those seals as stated
in my notes following t! ese of St. George, were not unknown, it is clear, to the lessees
at least six years before I knew anything about them.
[Wardman’s Entries. ]
St. Grorce Istanp, July and late June.
June 28, 1884. * * * First driving off of the young seals from under High
Bluffs just west of Stony Arteet. The natives set up small, noisy windmills, spilled
coal oil on the rocks, and set a number of small flags. * * *
But a few days afterward I [Wardman] was astonished to see the young seals all
back there laying in and around these windmill ‘‘screechers” and the fluttering
flags, showing no fear of them whatever. * * *
Natives sent down every few days with boats and whistles to drive the holluschickie
off, since they can not round them up, and kill on the beach margin—too narrow.
JElliott’s diary, St. Pauls Island, May 21-Aug. 14, 1890.]
Tuurspay, July 3, 1890.
Palmer, back from Northeast Point this evening, reports that all tte native sealing
gang used t! eir whistles and stampeded tle 1 olluschickie under the bluffs at Lukanin
and on Katavie Point, as t! ey came down with him: he says that they told him that
53490—_14—_17
258 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
they all had these whistles and used them to drive seals out of the rookeries, especi-
ally under these blufis of Lukanin, of tle Reef and Seevitchie Kammers; also of the
shelf on Zapadnie and Polovina Bluffs.
Saturpay, July 5, 1890:
Tingle drove all the holluschickie off from the landing (at Otter Island) as-soon as
we came ashore. ;
Juty 9, 1890.
Three natives driving holluschickie under tke ‘‘drop” at Zapadnie. They told
me that they had killed several thousand down tl-ere on tle shelf in 1887-88, and
carried the skins off in the baidar; only a few here to-day, and so drove them off,
rather than make a killing; also that every one of the S. W. Point seals were slaugh-
tered there on the ground in 1887-88; finest lot seals ever rounded up, not one under
size, and all secured.
[Elliott’s diary on St. Pauls Island, May 21-Aug. 14, 1890.]
Tuurspay, July 3, 1890.
Mr. Goff ! asked me to-night if I was aware of the fact that the natives had been
ordered to sweep the bluff margins at Zapadnie and strew broken bottles, coal-oil
cans, etc., on the rocks. I told him that I was; that this work of hustling out every
young male seal that could be found hiding in the shelter of the rookery margins and
under the high bluffs at Zapadnie, Polavina, Lukannon, and west side of Reef Point,
Sieviethie Kammen, and Otter Island was begun here in 1884, and also on St. George.
Mr. Goff also asked me if I knew that the natives were supplied with whistles for
stampeding the holluschickie on the rookery margins next to the surf, and that squads
were employed secretly at the work. I told him, yes; that Palmer! had witnessed
and heard such a ‘“‘drive” under Lukannon bluffs, when he was coming down from
Northeast Point, 4th instant. Palmer reported the occurrence to me.
What shall we do? As matters stand, do nothing but record it; it simply shows
the extreme diminution of the young male life.
Fripay, July 4.
Booterin and Artamonoy both shrugged their shoulders this morning when I asked
them about the whistles—‘‘Excuse me, please,’”’ and off they shuffled with very
wise grins.
I cornered Aggie Cushing to-day, and he admitted that he had been ordered to
“‘salt” the bluff rocks at Zapadnie in 1889; that every seal had been killed at 8. W.
Point and ‘‘Kursoolah” by the end of the season of 1888; that this hauling ground
was not driven; the baidar came direct from the village and the men rounded the
seals all up on the ground itself, killed and skinned them there, ‘‘all big seals;’”’ ‘‘fine,
very fine seals; none got away.’’ ‘‘When did you first come, Aggie?” ‘‘June, 1886,
we came first time.’’ ‘‘Why?” ‘‘Big, fine seals, sir; get em; every one, too.”’
“*Tts pretty well grass grown over there now; when did you quit killing there? ‘‘We
got them all in 1888, sir.”’ ‘‘Why haven’t any seals hauled there since?” ‘‘There
ain’t any left—they have all gone, maas lucken.’’ ‘‘When do you think the trouble
began here, Aggie?” “‘It first became hard, Mr. Elliott, in 1883, and it has been
getting harder and slower all the time.’”’ ‘‘Have you got a whistle, Aggie?” ‘‘Yes,”’
and showed it to me, slung under his shirt by aneck string; it was a regular pewter
dog whistle. Aggie begged off when asked as to details of the work of the whistle
brigade, and I dropped the subject.
DR. JORDAN DELIBERATELY FALSIFIES THE RUSSIAN RECORD IN RE
NOT KILLING FEMALE SEALS.
Dr. Jordan had full knowledge of the fact that the Russian 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
1 Chas. J. Goff, named above, is dedd. W.S. Palmer, however, also named and quoted above, is now
employed as one of the curators and preparators in the United States National Museum, Washington,
D. C. (May 13, 1913).
<i
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 259
nearly two years, has the following untruthful statement to finally
report under date of february 24, 1898, relative to the conduct of
this work of killing seals by the Russian management of the herd, to
wit.
On page 25, Fur Seal Investigation, Part I, 1898, under head of
the ‘“‘Company’s management,” he says:
At once, upon assuming control of the islands, the Russian American company put
a stop to the ruthless slaughter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruction.
* * * They still continued to Kall males and females alike. The injury to the
herd naturally continued. * * *
That Dr. Jordan could make such a statement in distinct denial of
the only authority which he has used, and knows, is hard to believe,
when on page 222, following, of this same report above cited, part
third, os the following translation of Bishop Veniaminov’s ac-
count 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 latter days of September. * * * The
siekatchie (bulls) and old females (i. e., two years and older) having been removed,
the others are divided ite small squads and are carefully driven to ‘the place where
they are to be killed, sometimes more than ten versts distant. * *
When brought to the killing grounds they are rested for an hour or more, according
to circumstances, and then killed withaclub. * * * Ofthose 1 year old, the males
are separated from the females and killed; the latter are driven carefully back to the
beach.
Here is the explicit, clear cut statement made by Veniaminov,
who, writing in 1825, after a season spent on St. Pauls Island, denies
Dr. Jordan’s assertion that the Russians killed male and female seals
alike, and that that killing of females destroyed the herd.
And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted, was made
by Leonhard Stejneger, one of Dr. Jordan’s own associates on the
Seal Islands, in 1896-97.
There is but one conclusion for any fair mind in the premises.
That the Russians did not kill the female seals is positively stated by
the only authority who has been invoked by Dr. Jordan in the
premises, and who has been translated at length in Dr. Jordan’s final
report, and correctly translated, as above cited.
In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should
have gone out of his way to misquote another authority who has
explicitly denied the killing of female seals by the Russians. On page
25, Jordan’s own statement is—
In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the Imperial Government, after an inspection of the
fur-seal rookeries, called attention to the practice of killing the young animals and
leaving only the adults as bieeders. He writes: “If any of the young breeders are not
killed by autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring.’
Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky cor-
rectly. He has deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this
Russian agent, and put another and entirely different statement in
his mouth: witness the following correct quotation of Yanovsky:
In his report No. 41, of the 25th February, 1820, Mr. Yanovsky, in giving an account
of his inspection of the operations on the islands ‘of St. Paul and St. George, observes
that ‘‘every year the young bachelor seals are killed, and that only the cows, seekatchie,
and half siekatch are left to propagate the species.”’ It follows that only the old seals
are left, while if any of the packet are left oe in the autumn they are sure to be
killed the next spring. The consequence is the number of seals obtained diminishes
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct. (Appendix
to case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration, Letter No. 6, p. 58, Mar. 5, 1821.)
260 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Think of this deliberate, studied suppression of the fact that the
Russians did not kill the female seals thus made by a “‘scientist”’ like
Dr. Jordan, as above. Why does Dr. Jordan attempt to deceive his
Government as to the real cause of that Russian decline of the herd
between 1800 and 1834? Why, indeed, when the truth is so easily
brought up to confound him? |
Why does Jordan substitute “breeders” for Yanovsky’s ‘‘bache-
lors’? to deceive; for a “‘breeder”’ is a female seal as well as male,
and that is precisely what Yanovsky has stated—that female seals
are not killed, but the ‘‘ young bachelor” seals are; and are all killed
in the spring if they are not so killed in the avtumn prior.
He stands convicted out of his own hand of having falsified the
record of Russian killing so as to justify the shame and rvin of that
work of our own lessees, who are thus shielded by him in his official
report to our Government dated February 24, 1898, and published
by the Secretary of the Treasury, in January, 1898, under title of
‘Fur Seal Investigation, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898.”
The record of Dr. David Starr Jordan on the killing grounds of the
Seal Islands vn 1896-97, clothed with full authority to regulate the killing
of seals, then:
VII. On July 11, 1896, less than one month after the publication
of those “Carlisle rules,’”’ above quoted, Dr. David Starr Jordan
landed on the Seal Islands, clothed with a supervising power on the
part of the Government over all this killing of the seals. He sends
to the department a report on this subject, and conceals from it the
fact that those “Carlisle rules” of May 14, 1896, have been openly
and flagrantly violated during the very first season of their publication.
(See Preliminary Report No. 7, 1896, p. 21, Treas. Doc. No. 1913, by
David Starr Jordan.)
The department has every confidence in Dr. Jordan as a naturalist,
who could not be deceived as to what “‘yearling” seals were, and
accepted his indorsement of this work by the lessees who killed those
yearling seals as above cited, in violation of that specific prohibition
by the department and under Dr. Jordan’s supervision.
But Dr. Jordan did know what a yearling seal was, and the following
entries made in the official journal declare it, for he was busy in
securing them as specimens for his own use, to wit: Under date of
Sunday, September 27, 1896, the following entry appears on page 53
of the official journal of the Government agents on St. Paul Island:
13. The skin of a yearling bull, smothered in the food drive from Lukannon was
taken for Stanford University.
8. A yearling holluschak shot on reef, supposed to be a virgin cow; the skin taken
for California Academy of Sciences.
Dr. Jordan had with him three naturalists, who served as his
subordinates on the occasion of his visit in 1896 and again in 1897 to
the Seal Islands. These associates, Messrs. Stejneger, Lucas, and
Townsend, all united with Dr. Jordan in that report of 1896 (Treas.
Doc., No. 1913, Nov. 7, 1896), which gave this illegal killing of year-
lings in 1896 a clean bill of health and which is so faithfully recorded
in the London sales sheet, December following, as being in violation
of those rules of May 14, 1896, above cited.
That Dr. Jordan, at the head of a great university, should thus
attempt to conceal the truth about that killing as above stated, seems
fairly unreasonable. What influence could the lessees have over
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 261
him? Leland Stanford, Jr., University was then governed by a board
of trustees, and chief on that board was one of the lessees, D. O. Mills.
That lessee was a commanding figure. It might have been very un-
ent in result for Dr. Jordan had he stopped the lessees’ work, as
e should have done, and reported their violation of the Secretary of
Treasury’s order to the department, as was his sworn duty to do.
Whatever may have been the cause of Jordan’s dereliction in the
premises, the fact remains that he was derelict, and not from want
of knowledge of what a yearling seal was.
On July 24, 1913, the natives of St. Paul island, during the course
of a meeting with the agents of the House Committee on Expenditures
in the Department of Commerce, on St. Paul Island, had this to say
of Dr. Jordan and this illegal work of 1896 (this statement is a depo-
sition duly taken):
Question. When, after this year (1890), did you get orders to kill those small seals—
to kill all of them that came in the drives?
aes In 1896 we commenced to take the 5-pound skins, to the best of our rec-
o1lection.
Question. Who directed this work of killing the small seals on the killing grounds?
Answer. We do not remember; but J. Stanley Brown was the company’s agent at
that time.
Question. Did the Government agents object?
Answer. We do not remember.
This shows that no objection on the part of the Government agents
was made, or those natives surely would have recalled it, just as they
remembered that this particular work was begun, as stated.
VU1.—This work of Dr. David Starr Jordan in 1896, was repeated
by him in 1897, and the same covering given to the killing of small
seals; and, on page 18 of his second preliminary report, dated
November 1, 1897, he says:
Last year the hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killable seals,
During the present season a quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To get these it was
necessary to drive more frequently and cull the animals more closely than has been
done since 1889. The killing season was closed on July 27, in 1896. This year it
was extended on St. Paul to August 7, and on St. George to August 11. The quota
to be left to our discretion, and every opportunity was given the lessees to take the
full product of the hauling of grounds.
ISAAC LIEBES SECURES THE APPOINTMENT OF LEMBKEY THROUGH
THE MEDIUM OF DR. JORDAN ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1900, BY SEOCRE-
TARY GAGE.
We have shown how the lessees managed to get rid of Chief Special
Agent Goff and Assistant Agent Lavender, and then to suborn
Assistant Agents Murray and Nettleton, who at first had joined with
Goff. \i e have shown how they secured the appointment of Williams
_ to succeed Goff, and Ziebach to take Lavender’s place. We have
shown how they secured the appointment of J. Stanley Brown to take
Williams’s place after the latter had expressed his dislike of the course
which he had been ordered to pursue as Goff’s successor. We have
shown how Brown promptly made an official order July 8, 1892,
turning the whole business of driving, selection, and killing of seals
on the killing grounds to the lessees; and we have shown how Brown,
for this guilty subserviency and malfeasance as a United States
agent, had been made the ‘“‘superintendent of the North American
262 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Commercial Co.,’’ or the lessees’ work on the islands in 1894. We
have shown how Murray was rewarded by being made chief special
agent in 1887; and when he died in 1888 how John Morton, another
subservient man, was put in charge as ‘‘United States chief special
agent”? by the lessees. It now becomes necessary to show how
Liebes had \V. J. Lembkey appointed as Morton’s successor Septem-
ber 30, 1900, which was soon after Morton’s death on the island of
St. Paul, July 15, 1900.
This record of Liebes’s and Elkins’s (lessees) influence is important
at this juncture, because Lembkey has been the active official instru-
ment which those men have used to secure illegally more than 100,000
‘small pup,” or yearling seals, since 1899 up to May 1, 1910.
When Mr. Lembkey was put under oath, April 13, 1912, he swore
that he did not know who recommended his appointment as John
Morton’s successor. He testified to the committee as follows:
Mr. Evirorr. Mr. Lembkey, you were appointed when?
Mr. LemBxey. Appointed to what position, sir?
Mr. Extrorr. To your office of assistant agent in the seal islands of Alaska. ,
Mr. LemBxey. In 1899.
Mr. Exxrorr. From what place where you appointed?
Mr. Lempxey. From what place?
Mr. Exirqrr. Yes, from what position?
Mr. LemBxey. I was appointed
Mr. Exxirorr. What position were you holding?
Mr. Lempxey. I was holding a clerkship in the Treasury Department at the time
of my appointment.
Mr. Exrrorr. That appointment was dated when?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not know; I do not remember.
Mr. Exxrorr. About what time did you go to the islands in 1899?
Mr. LemBxey. I got there some time in May or June—I forget which; I think May.
Mr. Exxrorr. Who was the chief special agent in charge of the islands?
Mr. Lempxey. John M. Morton.
Mr. Exxrorr. When were you appointed as chief special agent in charge of the seal
islands?
Mr. LEmMBKEY. Some time in 1900. I think in October.
Mr. Extrorr. You were appointed to take the position of whom?
Mr. LemsBxey. John M. Morton.
Mr. Exxiorr. Who asked for your appointment?
Mr. Lemsxey. I do not know.
Mr. Extrorr. Is it true that Mr. Isaac Liebes asked Dr. Jordan to telegraph Secre-
tary Gage that you be appointed to Mr. Morton’s place?
Mr. Lempxey. I did not know Mr. Isaac Liebes at that time, and, of course, I do
not suppose he did. However, as I have stated, I do not know who made the recom-
mendation. Jam under the impression the recommendation was made by the super-
vising special agent.
Mr. Extiotr. It was not made by Dr. Jordan?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not know anything about it. Dr. Jordan himself has denied
that he ever made any recommendation in the case. So faras I know I can not answer
the question. I was on the seal islands at the time of my appointment.
Mr. Extiorr. You were on the seal islands at the time of your appointment?
Mr. LeEMBKEY. At the time of my appointment as agent in charge.
Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Morton died when?
Mr. Lempxey. He died during my absence from the islands. I think it was in
July, 1900, or June; I am not certain which—either June or July of 1900.
Mr. Extrorr. You do not know who asked for your appointment?
Mr. Lempxey. I have not any knowledge whatever on that subject. (Hearing No.
9 p. 425, Apr. 13; 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept., C. &. L.).
Lembkey swears that he does not know who asked for his appoint-
ment, as above-cited testimony attests. The following statement of
fact shows that Isaac Liebes, for the lessees, asked Dr. Jordan to urge
Lembkey as Morton’s successor, and that Jordan did Liebes’s bidding,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 263
and Secretary of the Treasury Gage, September 30, 1900, in response
to Jordan’s request, appointed Lembkey.
In April, 1899, W. J. Lembkey, a $1,200 clerk in the Customs
Division, United States Treasury Department, was appointed to the
vacancy of an assistant special agent for service on the seal islands.
At the same time John Morton, assistant agent, was promoted to the
chief special agent’s office, made vacant by the death of Joseph
Murray, October, 1898, at Fort Collins, Colo.
Morton and Lembkey went up together from San Francisco, and
landed on St. Paul Island on June 10, 1899. Morton, in August fol-
lowing, went back to Washington for the winter, and left Lembkey
on St. Paul Island in charge.
When Morton returned, June 11, 1900, to St. Paul Island, he found
Lembkey ill and suffering from an ulcerated jaw, or threatened
necrosis of his jawbone. Lembkey obtained an immediate leave of
absence and left the island at once, on June 13, proceeded direct to
San Francisco on Liebes’s chartered ship, Homer, to go under a sur-
geon’s treatment when he arrived there (on or about June 27 or 28,
or early in July, 1900).
In the meantime Morton became ill, and died July 15, 1900. He
died in the Government agent’s house on St. Paul Island. The news
of Morton’s death reached Washington and San Francisco on or
about August 1 to 8 following. Lembkey, who had in the meantime
been relieved by surgical treatment, had started back to the islands
on the same vessel of the lessees which had carried him down, the
Homer. She sailed on or about August 8 for.this return trip to St.
Paul. Before he left San Francisco, and while down there on this
errand, as above stated, he was a frequent visitor to the office of Isaac
Liebes, on those matters of business which were connected with his
living on the islands with his family free of all cost for board, together
with service for not himself, but for his wife and daughter. He also
had the business of his passage up and down free for his wife and
daughter on that vessel, and himself, if his allowance of $600 per
annum for traveling expenses did not meet his own trip costs to and
from Washington.
Thus Mr. Lembkey became very well acquainted with Mr. Liebes,
and the seals never failed to form a common bond of interest. Liebes
soon knew Lembkey well.
When Liebes learned of Morton’s death, as usual, he at once looked
for a “‘proper successor” for the man whom he could trust as a
United States agent in charge. Hesent word to David Starr Jordan,
then at Palo Alto, that he (Liebes) desired him (Jordan) to telegraph
Secretary Gage of the immediate need for selection of a fit successor
to John Morton, and that he (Jordan) desired the appointment of
W. J. Lembkey; that was done by Jordan, on or about August 25
or 28, or thereabouts. On September 30, 1900, Gage ordered, as
Morton’s successor, the appointment of Lembkey, and notified Ezra
W. Clark that he had done so at the request of Dr. Jordan. Clark
ne been promised the place and did not fatl to tell why he had
ost it. /
It will be observed that Lembkey swears that he does not know
who urged his appointment; he was on the seal islands at the time
of his appointment; he arrived on the islands—after leaving San
Francisco on the Homer, August 8—on the 19th of August, 1900.
264 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Since his appointment was not made until September 30 following,
at Liebes’s and Jordan’s inspiration, he did not get news of it until
the following season, early in May.
Now let us see what Dr. Jordan has to say about this, after he had
been charged with this nomination of Lembkey (by Henry W.
Elliott). He addressed a letter to President Roosevelt, dated
January 16, 1906, in which he made the following evasive reference,
to, wit:
I may say incidentally, with reference to the concluding remark of Mr. Elliott in
his letter, that while I formed a very favorable opinion of Mr. Lembkey during his
incumbency of a position in the Treasury Department tn 1896-97, it is not just to
him to say that “he owes his appointment” to my nomination. Nor is it fair to
hold Mr. Lembkey responsible for the failure to solve these scientific questions..
They demand a training which he doubtless has not had, and in any event they could
not have been worked out successfully in addition to the ordinary duties and respon-
sibilities of his position. The natwalist who is to understand the herd must spend
practically all his time in observation of the rookeries.
Against this evasive answer (no denial) of his part in securing
Lembkey’s appointment, the files of the Treasury will show, in the
appointment clerk’s office, that telegram from Jordan, which urged
the appointment of Lembkey, and which secured it.
Later, in 1905, Lembkey, fearing the result of an examination into
his work at the islands by Mr. F. H. Hitchcock, in 1905-6, “‘cast an
anchor to the windward,” and told the truth October 26, 1905, about
the effect of the killmg by the lessees (pp. 157-179, Appendix A.).
The moment that Lembkey understood that the lessees had pre-
vented Hitchcock from visiting the islands (early in 1906), he
(Lembkey) returned to his service of the lessees, abjectly and shame-:
fully; ate his own words of truth, and joined with Jordan in the
usual annual eulogy of the ‘“‘benevolent killing” on the islands, and
the hypocritical ery of ‘‘terrible destruction by the pelagic sealers,”
etc., as the following exhibit clearly declares, to wit:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington October 26, 1905.
Str: I have the honor to submit the following report on the administration of affairs
on the seal islands of Alaska during the year ended August, 1905:
There were so few bulls on certain rookeries on St. Paul Island this summer that, by
reason of their scarcity, the harems were broken up before tne usual period and bachelors
were able to haul among the cows.
This occurred at a date when these young seals should have been excluded from
the breeding ground by vigilant bulls, and then forced to haul up, if they desired to
haul at all, only on the bachelor’s hauling ground.
This condition, in our opinion, is due to the scarcity of breeding males on the rookeries
generally, and to their being so taxed in special localities with the service of the cows
that they were unable or unwilling to drive out the bachelors. Had idle bulls been
sufficiently numerous this condition would not have occurred.
The present scarcity of bulls is attributable directly to close killing on land, from which
not enough bachelors were allowed to escape from the killing fields to maintain the
requisite proportion of bulls.
Respectfully, W. J. LemMpBxey,
Agent in Charge Seal Islands.
The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.,
But, in 1913, he has another ‘‘report” to make—to-wit:
Mr. LemBxey. The number of breeding bulls on the island, as found by the fore-
going census, is 1,356 active and 329 idle, a total of 1,685 bulls ready for service. With
39,400 breeding and 10,297 virgin females, occupied with 1,356 active bulls, the
average harem is only 36. The $29 idle bulls which did not secure cows during the summer
will serve some of the 2-year-old or virgin cows coming in for their initial impregnation
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 265
in the fall, and would reduce the size of the average harem to 30, a perfectly normal
ratio of the sexes.
It might be claimed that the size of the herd of idle bulls is very small, and that
therefore not enough male seals escape the killing grounds to maintain an ideally
healthy relation between breeding males and females. It is true that the number of
idle bulls is small, but proportionately it is as large as any true friend of the seals
would desire. With a total of only 1,685 adult bulls present, the idle, 329, represent
19 per cent, or nearly one-fifth, of the whole number present. This number has not
been estimated, but has actually been counted one by one, so that the presence of
these bulls is not in the least a matter of conjecture, but is an assured fact. With
1 bull idle out of every 5 present, not even the most radical critic could fail of conviction
that an ample surplus of male life exists, and for this reason the killing of male seals
on land has not been of such a nature as to endanger in any way the safety of the herd or
its future increase—(Hearing No. 9, p. 368, Feb. 29, 1912, H. Com. Dept. Com. &
Labor.)
Note.—There is no breeding after August 1, annually, and no one knows it better
than Lembkey.—H. W. E.
GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES.
That the Bureau of Fisheries had complete knowledge of the fact
that these “loaded”’ weights which are certified into the skin records
of killing and taking by the lessees did not govern the size or value of
them when sold is admitted, under oath, as follows:
Mr. Mappen. The point is, does the weight of the skin have anything to do with the
value of the skin?
Mr. Lempxey. The weight of the skin, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the
value of the skin.
Mr. Mappew. Is it sold by the pound, or how?
Mr. Lempxkey. Not by the pound, by the size—the amount offuronit. Ifweshould
leave 5 pounds of blubber on the skin there would only be so much fur on it for the
garment maker to make the garment of.
Mr. McGruicuppy. If you took a young skin and for the purpose of making it appear
by weight older, you could deceive?
Mr. Lempxry. We certainly could deceive. We could fill it with any sort of substance.
Mr. McGitticuppy. 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 he, if honestly taken, would it be a test?
Mr. Lempxey. I tried to make that clear to the committee.
The CHarrMan. That is a direct question. Why do you not answer it?
Mr. Lempxkey. J am attempting to. It is impossible; of course all our actions up
there are honestly.
Mr. Mappewn (interposing). Answer the question right straight. Do not try to
explain it.
Mr. Lemsxey. I have attempted to state that in measuring a green skin it is impos-
sible to find out its exact length when you lay it on the ground, because it may curl
up, or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened by salt.
Mr. McGuuicuppy. Then it will not stretch?
Mr. LempBxey. Certainly not.
ne PEN CURE That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid
and stiff?
Mr. LemBxey. Certainly.
Mr. McGmuicuppy. You can not then stretch or shrink it?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir.
Mr. McGruicuppy. With an honest measurement of that kind of skin would it not deter-
mine the age?
Mr. Lemepxey. I fancy, yes.
Mr. McGmuicuppy. Is there any doubt about 1t?
Mr. Lemexery. Ido not think so. I say fancy, because I never attempted to judge
of age by the measurements.
Mr. McGuuicuppy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive,
because you say they could not stretch it?
Mr. Lempxey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days,
because the skin then is not very pliable.
266 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGituicuppy. 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. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 399-400, Feb. 29, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. and Lab.)
Here the chief special agent of the Bureau of Fisheries in charge
of the seal islands distinctly tells the committee that when those
skins taken by him have been im salt “four or five days”’ they can not
be-stretched or shrunken; that they are then fixed for a reliable
Sens and so fixed when they leave the islands for the London
sales.
Then, later on, this chief special agent in charge of the seal islands,
when asked by the committee to give his measurements made by
himself of a yearling seal of his own identification as such, he swears
(on pp. 442, 443) as follows (Hearing No. 9.):
Mr. Lempxey. Now, Mr. Elliott, proceed.
Mr. Extiotr. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its
nose to the tip of its tail?
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir, not off-hand.
Mr. Exrtiorr. You never measured one?
Mr. Lempxey. Oh, yes, I have measured one.
Mr. Exxriorr. Have you no record of it?
Mr. Lempxrey. I have a record of it here.
Mr. Ex.iorr. 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, 394 inches in one instance and 394 in another instance——
Mr. Exirorr. Yes.
Mr. Lempxey. And 41 in another insiance. | measured only three.
Mr. Extuiorr. When you take a skin off of that yearling seal, how much of thut skin do
you. leave on there?
Mr. Lempxey. You do not leave very much on the tail end there [indicating]; not
nearly so much as your sketch would show.
Mr. Extiorr. It does not matter.
Mr. Lempxey. We leave about 3 inches, perhaps, on the head.
Mr. Exrtrorr. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken the
skin off?
The CHarrman. How much skin is left after you have taken it off?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain amount
is leit on.
Mr. Lempxey. I stated about 3 inches.
Mr. Exurorr. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long.
Mr. Lemspxey. No; if it was 394 inches long it would leave tt 364 inches. That is, all
the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 394 inches long.
Three inches off that would leave 364 INCHES.
In this distinct and explicit statement, Mr. Lembkey tells the com-
mittee that a yearling seal skin of his own identification and measure-
ment is 364 inches long, and that its measurement as such is fixed
and constant after ‘‘four or five days in salt.”
On page 447, he admits to the committee that the official classifi-
cation of his catch of 12,920 seal skins taken by him in 1910 and
measured in salt carries 7,733 skins which are less than 34 inches
long (or are yearling skins), any one of them, as follows:
Mr. Exuorr. I am getting at the analysis of your catch which you have given here
already. You have given in a statement here that 8,000 of them were “‘small” and
‘extra small.”’
Mr. LEMBKEY. 7
Mr. Evtrotr. 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.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 267
Mr. Lemspxey. The committee can see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser states that
small pups measured 33} inches in length.
Mr. Exzrotr. From there [indicating] to there [indicating].
Mr. Lempxey. Thirty-three and three-quarters inches in length, and extra small pups
measured 30 inches in length.
Mr. Extiotr. Then you have some extra small pups there which makes it 8,000.
Mr. LemBxkey. Only 11 of those.
Mr. Exuiorr. It does not amount to anything.
Mr. Lempxey. Ji just makes your 8,000 about 300 more than the actual number.
Mr. Lembkey can not sensibly dispute the fact that he has taken
7,733 ‘‘yearling” seals in 1910; and this done in open violation of
the law and regulations of the department which he is sworn to obey
and enforce, and which he quotes to the committee (on p. 372) as
follows:
Mr. Mappven. Jf they were killed it would be a wiolation of law.
Mr. Lempxey. Jt 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. TowNsEND. That is a regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor?
Mr. Lempxey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir.
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. LEMBKEY. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within
the weights prescribed by the regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and
minimum weights. Those weights are 5 pounds
Mr. Youne. Does that relate to the question of age?
Mr. Lemspxey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds.
Mr. Youne. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose in
measuring?
Mr. Lempxey. They measure them, I fancy
Mr. Youne. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too?
Mr. Lempxey. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on the
animal.
Mr. Youne. They care nothing about the question of age there?
Mr. LempBxey. Nothing at all.
Mr. Younae. Thatisall I care to ask.
That these natives know what they are doing when directed by
the lessees to kill seals, the following testimony of Chief Special Agent
Lembkey fully attests; it is found on page 58 of manuscript notes
of Ways and Means hearing, January 25, 1907.
Mr. 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.
Mr. Grosvenor. That is all I wanted to know.
Mr. Lemsxey. They also know the age of a seal from his appearance.
Manuscript notes, page 59:
Mr. Crark. These experts can tell a 4-year-old from a 3-year-old, can they?
Mr. Lempxey. By looking at him.
Mr. CuiarK. By locking at him?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes.
Mr. Ciarx. They are pretty expert.
Mr. NeepHAm. Are these killers, ‘‘natives’’?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, they are natives. I can state positively that they arrive at
that degree of experience. ;
268 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
We find that on May 14, 1896, the Secreiary of the Treasury in-
structed the agents in charge of the seal islands to permit “no taking
. of seals that had skins less than 6 pounds in weight,” or ‘ yearlings.”
This order is entered at length, at page 14, of the official record or
journal, of the special agent, St. Paul Island, on June 17, 1896. In
1900, Chief Special Agent Lembkey (suceeeding John Morton, who
died that year) submits a report to the Treasury Department for this
season’s work of 1900 (as well as 1901), in which he says:
In 1900 the standard was lowered from 6 pounds to 5 pounds, being the first time in
the history of this business, and as many 5-pound skins as could be found were taken.
An inspection of the official journal of the chief special agent, St.
Paul’s Island, for the season of 1900, fails to show any entry of any
order from the Secretary of the Treasury which rescinds that official
order of May 14, 1896, and which would be in the same official log
book if made. By what authority was this kllimg which Mr. Lemb-
key, and which the London records certify to—by what legal or moral
authority was that killing, as well as “the taking of skins weighing
less than 6 pounds or yearlings,’ made during this season? None,
whatever.
In 1904, following the visit of Senators Dilingham, Nelson, Burn-
ham, and Patterson (this killing of those yearling seal: having been
noticed by those Senators on the islands August 3, 1903), they intro-
duced a bill which suspended entirely the work of the lessees on these
islands. That caused the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Mr.
Cortelyou, to come forward and engage to check up this work of killin
the small seals and yearlings, and on his pledge the Senators road
from pressing that bill. He accordingly issued what is known as the
Hitchcock Rules, ordered May 1, 1904, which forbade the killing of
“any seal haying a skin weighing less than 54 pounds or any seals un-
der 2 years of age.”’
We now reach that combination made between the lessees and the
Government agents to evade this order of the Hitchcock Rules; when
Hitchcock left the Department of Commerce and Labor early in 1905
these men went to work as follows:
An unwilling confession was made by Lembkey of that guilt of
nullification, when cross-examined, under oath, before the House
Committee on Expenditures Department Commerce and Labor, Feb-
ruary 20-April 13, 1912. (See pp. 363, 458, Hearmg No. 9.)
This conspiracy to enable D. O. Mills, United States Senator Elkins,
and Isaac Liebes, as lessees, to enrich themselves at the public cost
and credit, has been shielded and approved by the ‘‘scientific”
‘Advisory Board on Fur-Seal Service,’ with Dr. David 8S. Jordan,
as ‘‘president”’ of the same.
Liebes and Lembkey got together to nullify the Hitchcock Rules
n 1906, which ordered the reservation of 2,000 young male seals
(1,000 2-year-olds and 1,000 3-year-olds), annually before the
lessees’ killing began, this reservation being ordered thus, to pre-
vent the swift impending ruin of all male breeding seal life on the
rookeries. .
In further proof of the fact that Lembkey knew he was killing
those ‘‘reserved” 3-year-old seals, so as to meet the wishes of Liebes,
the following official evidence is submitted.
In 1905 First Assistant Agent Judge, finding that he was killin
in October and November, 1904, all of the 3-year-old seals whic
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 269
had been “‘reserved” and ‘‘immune”’ from slaughter in June and July
previously, he made a clear pointed statement to that effect in his
annual report, dated June 5, 1905, to wit:
To remove all possibility of killing branded seais in the fali on which the brands
have become indistinct it will be necessary to prohibit the slaughter of any animal
the skin of which weighs over 6 pounds. (Rept. Agt. Jas. Judge, p. 180; Appendix
A; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor, June 24, 1911.)
Now, in the face of this distinct proof given him as above, that he
must make a 6-pound maximum limit for food skins, or let the lessees
continue to nullify the Hitchcock Rules, does W. I. Lembkey do so?
Observe the following sworn statement by him that he does not—
that he kills them all:
Mr. McGurre. Right there, Mr. Lembkey, did you prohibit their killing them?
Mr. Lempxey. | did.
Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age?
Mr. Lempxey. | did.
Mr. Exuiorr. In 1904?
~ Mr. LemBKey. Yes.
Mr. Exuiorr. Did you do it in 1905?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes.
Mr. Extiotr. How did you do it? You had no brand on them.
Mr. Lempxey. By fixing a limit of 83} pounds on the skins to be taken. (Hearing
No. 9, p. 458, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT SWORN TESTIMONY WHICH DECLARES THIS
GUILTY COLLUSION—IN NULLIFYING THE HITCHCOCK RULES.
Lembkey, February 4, 1911, declares “‘the weight of a 3 year old
skin is 7 pounds,’ and to “save the 3 year-olds,’ he has ordered “no
skins taken which are over 64 pounds.”
[Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July 25, 1912.]
Mr. Evtiorr. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the matter of the nullification of the Hitch-
cock rules, with this evidence duly considered by your committee of the illegal
kalling oi those yearling seals in 1910 (and that evidence of this guilt applies to every
season’s work on the Pribilof Islands ever since 1890 down to May 1, 1910), I desire to
present the following testimony, which declares that ever since May 1, 1904, when
the ‘‘Hitchcock rules” were first ordered by the Department of Commerce and ‘Labor,
those rules have been systematically and flagrantly violated by the agents of this.
department who were specially sworn to obey and enforce them.
On February 4, 1911, Chief Special Agent Lembkey was introduced by Secretary
Charles Nagel to the United States Senate Committée on Conservation of National
Resources, and during his examination by that committee he made the following
statement, to wit, on page 14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959, February 4, 1911, Com-
mittee on Conservation of National Resources): =
“Dr. Hornapay. How many ‘short 2-year-olds’ were killed last year?
““Mr. Lempxey. I do not understand your term. No seals under 2 years old, to
my knowledge, were killed.
‘Dr. Hornapay. What would be the age of the smallest yearlings taken?
““Mr. Lempxey. Two-year-olds rarely, if any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday,
that a great difference of opinion exists between Mr. Elliott and the remaining people
who understand this situation. There is a great gulf between their opinions, and
it can never be reconciled on the question of the weights of skins of 2-year-olds.
‘Prot. Exxiotr. I will present my information in a moment.
“Dr. Hornapay. The minimum weight is what?
“Mr. Lempxey. Five pounds. During food drives made by the natives, when
the seals killed are limited to 64 pounds, in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds branded
during the summer, you understand the natives do kill down a little more closely than
our regulations allow, for the reason that they need the meat, and since they have to
glide all these fine, fat seals over 64 pounds they go for the little fellows a little more
closely.
“The CuatrMaNn. How many seals were killed last year for food by the natives?
f
270 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
“Mr. Lempxey. The limit was 2,500. Speaking offhand, I think about 2,300
were killed.
“*Q. Were any females killed?—A. No, siz; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated,
I carefully interrogated these two gentlemen who had charge of this killing, and
they stated that to their knowledge no female was killed.
““Q. What class of males were killed by the natives for food? =A. Under 64 pounds——”’
Then, soon after stating that “6}-pound”’ limit, Lembkey admitted
that he did not put that reservation down to ‘‘64 pounds” until
proof had been given him, that an 8$ pound skin hmit did not spare
those 3. year olds (and, he did not fiz that lumit even then), to wit:
[Dixon Hearing, p. 19, Feb. 4, 1911.]
Senator HrEyBuRN. State the document and the page from which you read.
Prof. Exuiorr. Senate Document No. 98, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, page
86. Here is the official report of Mr. W. I. Lembkey, in which the preservation and.
protection and conservation of this seal life, which he so graphically described to
you a moment ago, is blown clear out ot water by its own force of official denial.
REPORT OF AGENT JAMES JUDGE.
Sr. GEoRGE IsLAND, June 5, 1905.
Dear Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report of affairs on St. George
Island, covering the interval from August 14, 1904, to date:
SEALS,
On October 7 Little East Rookery was carefully gone over for the purpose of counting
dead pups, but none were found.
At that season foxes in greater or less numbers are always present on the rookeries
and quickly eat the pups or older animals that may happen to die. Pup skulls were
frequently found during September in the rear of the rookeries, where they had
undoubtedly been left by the foxes, the bodies having been devoured.
Further counting of dead pups was therefore not attempted, as it seemed a disturb-
ance of the seals to no good purpose.
The first food drive was made October 19; killed, 59; dismissed, 6 large, 197 small, —
and 6 brands. Two of the latter were from St. Paul. While all brands were very
faint, those made with shears were less discernible than those made with hot irons.
Just the slightest trace of a brand on one of the dead informed us that the wrong animal
had been knocked down. The skin weighed 8 pounds. That other 3-year-olds branded in
the spring, on which the fur had grown out so that the brand had become obliterated, were
also killed is more than probable, as 69 per cent of the dead skins weighed 7 pounds and
over, the heaviest weighing 9 pounds.
Mr. LemsBxkey. May I interrupt the gentlemen just a second to ask whether the
report does not state that Mr. Judge at once took measures to prevent the killing of any
more of these branded seals by limiting the weights of skins to 64 pounds, a practice which
has been followed ever since?
Did Lembkey tell the truth? No; he deliberately denies under oath,
April 18, 1912, what he asserts as above in re a ‘“‘64-pound limit” and
thus admits his guilt in the premises, as below, to wit:
Mr. Extiorr. Now, what follows, gentlemen of the committee—does he make that
order of reservation? No; he actually nullifies it, and unwittingly confesses that mal-
feasance in the following sworn statement made to your committee April 13 last, on
page 458, Hearing No. 9, Lembkey affirms:
“Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lembkey, did you prohibit killing them?
“Mr. LemBKeEY. I did.
“Mr. McGurre. Over 4 years of age?
“Mr. Lempxey. I did.
“Mr. Extrorr. In 1904?
‘““Mr. LEMBKEY. Yes.
“Mr. Extiorr. Did you do it in 1905?
“Mr. LEMBKEY. Yes.
‘“Mr. Exruiorr. How did you do it? You had no brand on them.
“Mr. LemBKeEY. By fixing a limit of 84 pounds on the skins to be taken.”’
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 271
Now, what has become of that “‘64-pound” 8-year-old limit by which he has sworn he
saved the 3-year-olds” in June and July, to be again “‘saved”’ by him as such in the
autumn following by having this maximum limit of “64 pounds” put on the taking
of any “‘food skins”? Why, they are all killed.
Mr. Mappren. How many people are thete on the islands?
Mr. Extiotr. About 300; about 250 now. Why, those 3-year-olds so saved are all
killed later in the season, and so killed as being under the limit of ‘“84 pounds”! He
thus stupidly confesses to you, as above quoted, that he has nullified the very rules of
the department that he was and is sworn to obey and enforce.
The Hitchcock rules ordered a “permanent mark” to be put upon these reserved
seals, “and under no circumstances are they to be taken,”’ ete. Why was it not done?
The answer is easy. The lessees wanted those skins, and they manipulated Lembkey as
above—they got them.!
The natives made no mistake—not at all—‘‘they took those 4-
year-olds for 3-year-olds”’ just because the lessees’ agents ordered
them to doso. EH. W. Clark is not telling all of the truth—only part
of it, for good reasons of his own, perhaps!
St. GrorGE Istanp, August 14, 1907.
Dear Mr. LempBxey. It has occurred to me that you may wish a formal statement
regarding the marking of the young male seals at this island for a breeding reserve.
The following is a statement in detail:
Date. Rookery. 2 erat 3 ren 4 ea
SHNOMECMINSEATAV ASAT LOL o- cc's aa = ai siecle sete niaiee cc cece ce cea kee ce waeea emer 29 32 20
TRENT Ene ee ee RS Be ee oS cee NL in HN a 14 14 11
BO) etapadnin. = Sas 8 ee ad sues ie eee a RS Ss Pe Sloe as aes 14 18 15
PAAR HTAS fe Pees eye ne Seay inh rates eo fo sei eeieieis BELA Sele eiminis late cre See eins 26 28 15
PROS UAL AY AATEC Loo ees c eens eicta sel aioe sion cata als eee eta svay reheat seosisionis 68 61 6
PA AS Cone Te a oto Sera Se ee Bera ietat oivlols Soe si cioelals ceeis Sees eases 38 37 14
Primal paanii ian. cys ® aires Sans aeet e arises Se Soe et eiadabasios 11 12 4
PRO PAIRS choc ae Caine See eee oes eee e einai ee yee 200 202 85
While the marking of 4-year-old seals is not enjoined, I deemed it wise to mark those
which the natives caught, believing that if they would make the error of taking these
seals for three years old when we were branding they were likely to make a similar
error when we came to killing, and it was a good plan to render such seals immune
for the season.
Our selection of seals for breeding was of the first class, and the marks remain as
conspicuous now as when first applied.
Very respectfully, Ezra W. CiarK,
Assistant Agent in Charge.
1 The manner in which they were “‘reserved” and then taken is set forth as follows:
3. The reserve of bachelors —Beginning with the season of 1904, there has been set aside each spring a
special breeding reserve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years ofage. These animals have been marked by
clipping the head with sheep shears, giving them a whitish mark readily distinguishing them to the club-
bers. They are carefully exempted on the killing field and released.
This method of creating a breeding reserve seems open to considerable criticism, and has apparently been
only moderately successful. The mark put upon the animal is a temporary one. The fur is replaced
during the fall and winter, and the following spring the marked seals can not be recognized. The animals
being 2 and 3 years of age are Still killable the next season, the 2-year-olds in fact the second season. A new
lot of 2,000 is clipped the next season, and these are carefully exempted, but, except in so far as animals
of the previous season’s marking are reclipped, they have no protection the second season, and without
doubt are killed.
If such is not the case, it is difficult to understand what becomes of them. (Report of G. A. Clark, p. 847,
Appendiz A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.)
272 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
(Appendix A, p
Commerce and eee June 24, 1911. )
533, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
Lembkey says the 3-year-olds
and other holluschickie are not
driven out from shelter of the breed-
ing cows.
Chief Special Agent LEMBKEY:
“Furthermore, the 3-year-olds, having
passed the age of puberty, are not found
on the hauling grounds during the fall,
but are hauled among the cows on the
rookeries when they can not be driven.
This is an additional safeguard against
their killing, and of itself would disprove
any allegation that these marked seals are
subsequently killed.”? (Report, Dec. 14,
1906. S. Doc. 376, p. 18, 60th Cong, Ist
sess. )
But his assistant tells him that
they are so ‘‘pulled out from among
the cows.”
Assistant Agent JAMES JUDGE:
“Seals —Four hundred and fifty-eight
seals of the quota of 500 allowed the na-
tives of this island for food were obtained.
The first drive was made on October 19,
from Staraya Artel, and 220 seals were
killed; 209 small, sixty-five 3-year-olds,
five 4-year-olds, six 5-year-olds, two
6-year-olds, and 4 branded were turned
away. ‘Three other drives were made as
follows: October 31, Staraya Artel rook-
ery, 148 seals were killed; twelve 3-year-
olds released; November 9, Staraya Artel
and North, 44 seals killed: November 16,
North rookery, 25 seals killed; October 20
to November 10, Zapadni Guards, 21 seals
killed.
“The last three drives were made up
entirely of seals pulled out from among
the cows by the natives, and as very care-
ful selection had taken place on the rook-
ery very few were turned away from the
killing field.’? (Report June 3, 1907, 8S.
Doc. 376, p. 105, 60th Cong., 1st sess.)
And in final and complete proof of this guilty knowledge possessed
by Liebes, Lembkey, Evermann, and Bowers, as lessees and officials,
that these ‘‘reserved”’
seals were being taken in violation of regula-
tions, the deadly parallel is drawn upon them, thus:
Lembkey declares that the reg-
ulations “order no food skins taken
over 64 pounds”’; and that he faith-
fully obeys them:
Mr. LEMBKEY:
Notwithstanding repeated allegations to
the contrary, the regulations of the depart-
ment fully protect the breeding herd and these
regulations are carefully and thoroughly
observed. They require that no female or
marked male should be killed, and no male
seal having a pelt weighing less than 5 or
more than 84 pounds. During the food
killing season of the fall and spring seals
having skins weighing over 64 pounds or
under 5 pounds may not be taken, this
extra limitation being enforced to prevent
the killing of those males marked for breeding
pur poses after the new hair has grown in and
obliterated the mark which is placed upon
their hides at the beginning of the season.
But Evermann furnishes the
committee with copies of these
regulations which order “no food
skins taken over Sk pounds”—
and thus confessing the deceit of
Lembkey! (and himself also).
Dr. EVERMANN:
I wish to call particular attention to
these paragraphs of the instructions re-
garding reservations to be made:
[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.]
Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals —No seals
shall be killed having skins weighing less than
5 pounds nor more than 84 POUra. Skins
weighing more than $4 pounds shall not be
shipped from the islands, but shall be held
there subject to such instructions as may
be furnished you hereafter by the depart-
ment. Skins weighing less than 5 pounds
shall not be shipped from the islands, un-
less, in your judgment, the number thereof
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 273
Mr. Mappen. Right there, let me aska
question.
Mr. Lemspxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. I do not think it will
interfere. You said that seals two or
three years of age were killed?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. And that noskin weighed
less than 5 or more than 8 pounds?
Mr. Lempxey. More than 84 pounds.
Mr. Mappen. Except during a certain
period of the season when the higher weight
was reduced to 64 pounds?
Mr. LemBxkey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mappen. What becomes of the
seals more than 3 years of age?
Mr. Lempxey. They are allowed to
mature as breeders. (Hearing No. 9, p.
363, Feb. 29, 1912, House Com. Exp. Dept.
Commerce and Labor.)
53490—14——18
is so small as to justify the belief that
they have been taken only through un-
avoidable accident, mistake, or error in
judgment.
Sec. 9. Killing season.—The killing
season should begin as soon after the 1st of
June as the rookeries are in condition for
driving. Seals shall not be killed by the
lessee later than July 31. No seals what-
ever shall be taken during the stagey sea-
son. The killing of pups for food for the
natives, or for any other purpose, is not to
be permitted.
Sec. 10. Seals for food —The number of
seals to be killed by the natives for food for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906, shall
not exceed 1,700 on the island of St. Paul
and 500 on the island of St. George, swb-
ject to the same limitations and restrictions
as apply to the killing of seals by the com-
pany for the quota. Care should be taken
that no branded seals be killed in the
drives for food.
[Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.]
Sec. 6. Quota—Identical with instrue-
tions of 1906.
Sec. 7. Reservation of young males.—
Identical with instructions of 1905.
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 less than 5 pounds or more
than 84 pounds shall not be shipped from
the islands, but shall be held there subject
to such instructions as may be furnished
you hereafter by the department.
Sec. 9. Killing season.—The killing
season should begin as soon after the Ist of
June as the rookeries are in condition for
driving. Seals shall not be killed by the
lessee later than July 31. The killing of
pups for food for the natives, or for any
other purpose, is not to be permitted.
Src. 10. Seals for food.—Identical with
instructions of 1906.
[Instructions issued Apr. 1, 1908,|
Sec. 6. Quota.—Identical with instrue-
tions of 1907.
Sec. 7. Reservation of young males.—
Identical with instructions of 1906 and
1907.
Suc. 8. Sizes of killable seals.—Identical
with instructions of 1907.
Src. 9. Killing season.—Identical with
instructions of 1907.
Sec. 10. Seals for food.—Identical with
instructions for 1907. (Hearing No. 10,
pp. 483-484, Apr. 19, 1912, House Com,
Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor.)
274 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
When the Hitchcock rules were first published the lessees were
shocked, and at once took Lembkey to task—how could he do such
an act ?
Lembkey tells them that Elliott did it—that HE was not to blame, and
that Elliott was the “pest” that prevented Lembkey from fully serving
Liebes. Under examination April 13, 1912, he testifies—
Hearing No. 9, p. 455.1
Mr. Exrorr (reads from Lembkey’s letter to Hitchcock, May 20, 1904):
‘‘When I pointed out that my instructions were not discretionary, he stated that
he would at once protest to the department. He requested that I inform him by
official letter of the requirement, which I did, and, at his urgent request, inclosed a
copy of your letter. I have taken pains to explain to him the situation that existed
in Washington last winter, and that the attitude of the department is not one of hos-
tility to the company, but necessary to avoid sinister results.’’
Mr. LemBxkey. Sinister results?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes. [Reading:]
“While admitting in one breath ‘a knowledge of the Elliott campaign ca
You told him I did this thing, did you not?
Mr. Lempxey. J certainly did.
Mr. Exxrotr. I am glad you did.
Mr. Lempxey. J told him that you were the greatest pest the department ever had.
Mr. Extrorr. I am glad to hear that. That is music to me. :
Before this order was made, May 1, 1904, we find Lembkey busy
with Jordan and working with Liebes for the illegal killing of small
seals.
Lembkey tried to prevent the “‘54-pounds limit” being ordered in
1904, and confesses the attempt, under cross-examination to the
committee, thus—
[Hearing No. 9, p, 449, Apr. 13, 1912.]
Mr. Exuiorr. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the Hitchcock rules were first published, I believe.
Have they been changed since then?
Mr. Lempxeny. Yes, they have.
Mr. Exxiorr. As to killing any seal under 2 years of age?
Mr. Lemspxey. Not so far as to killing any seal under 2 years of age, but in 1906 they
were changed so as to make the minimum weight 5 instead of 54 pounds.
Mr. Exniotr. Why did the department fix 54 pounds in 1906?
Mr. Lempxey. Now you are asking me something, Mr. Elliott, I do not believe I
am qualified to answer; just how the department arrived at an opinion of that kind
would hardly be a question for me to testify to.
Mr. Exniorr. You were not consulted?
Mr. LemBxey. I was not consulted when the order was written.
Mr. Extiorr. That is all I wanted to get at, sir. Im 1900 and
Mr. Lemspxey. J will state, however, that I made a recommendation to the effect that the
weight be decreased from 54 pounds to 5 pounds, if that is what you have reference to.
Mr. Extrorr. Oh, you did. Did you make that recommendation in 1904?
Mr. Lempxey. If I remember correctly J recommended to Mr. Hitchcock that the mini-
mum weight in 1904 be fixed at 5 pownds.
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; and Mr. Hitchcock overruled you.
Mr. LemBxey. I do not say that he overruled me. He fixed the weight, according
to his published statement, at 54 pounds so that there would be absolutely no question as to
the fact that the seals taken were over 2 years of age.
Mr. Exxiorr. Were ‘‘not under 2 years of age?”
Mr. Lempxkey. Over 2 years of age.
Mr. Exxrorr. Does not this regulation say ‘‘under 2 years of age?”
Mr. Lemspxey. I guess we are talking about the same thing only we do not recognize
it. He said there should be no question of the fact that the skins taken were over 2
years of age. I presume that is what you mean, too.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 275
Finding that they could not get any change in the rules of May 1,
1904, ordered, so that they might be easier to nullify on the islands
(or nullify them the lessees at once did), they sets to work and
Lembkey got busy with Liebes in planning a change in the rules of the
Hitchcock Order of May 1, 1904, which prevented them from taking year-
lings, without a good deal of trouble.
They succeeded in 1906, after Hitchcock left the Department of Com-
merce and Labor, and not until then.
After Mr. Hitchcock went into the Postmaster General’s office,
March, 1905, Lembkey succeeded in lowering the minimum 54-pound
standard weight set by ‘‘ Hitchcock rules,” to 5 pounds by March 9,
1906, and so took the “yearlings” for the lessees, easier, as ‘‘2-year-
old male seals,’ and falsely certified them as such! The lessees not
only objected to the 54-pound limit which shut out the yearlings, but
they claimed the right to kill all the 4-year-olds as well! as shown by the
jollowing testimony in Hearing No. 9, p. 454, Apri 13, 1912, to wit:
Mr. Extiorr. When these Hitchcock rules were published in 1904, and you went out to
San Francisco, was any protest made to you by the lessees?
Mr. Lempxey. You know perfectly well that there was, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Extiorr. What did you tell them, Mr. Lembkey?
Mr. Lempxey. Perhaps since you have in mind my report for 1904 which makes
mention oi those protests from the company, I had better refer to those so that the com-
mittee may know just exactly what was done. On page 81 of Appendix A of these
hearings in which is published my annual report as agent in charge of the seal fisheries
for the year 1904 I discuss the following under the subheading ‘‘protests from the
company”:
“While the North American Commercial Co. complied in every particular this sum-
mer with the regulations of the department, I received from its officers several protests
against the department’s action in restricting the catch of the company.”’
This report is addressed to Mr. Hitchcock:
“Upon receipt of your letter of May 12 last prescribing a 54-pound limit on 2-year-old
skins, I notified Mr. Taylor, the president of the company, of the contents of the letter.
He at once entered a vigorous protest. Upon my informing him that I had no option
in the matter, he appealed directly to the department, and held the company’s vessel
in Sausalito for half a day until the receipt of the department’sreply. With that mat-
ter, however, you are familiar.
“Upon arrival at the islands, while discussing the coming season’s work with Mr.
Redpath, the company’s general agent, I mentioned the prohibition against the killing
of 4-year-olds, and stated that, to give effect to this prohibition, I would place a limit
on large skins of from 84 to 9 pounds. Mr. Redpath at once expressed surprise at the
existence of this prohibition and entered a vigorous protest against any interference
with the killing of 4-year-olds. He produced a copy of the department’s instructions
to me and quoted from the clause relating to the restriction of killing in support of his
argument.”
Then finding that there was an easy way to nullify these ‘‘reserva-
tions’ of the Hitchcock Rules, the lessees quickly used a pair of
sheep shears and ‘‘branded”’ the “spared” seals as follows: All this
done with the servile collusion of the agents of the Government:
To provide a definite reserve of male life for breeding purposes the agents tell me
they drove up in the early part of the season, and before killing was begun by the
company, 2,000 bachelor seals of 2 and 3 years of age and shaved their heads with sheep
shears, thus marking them so that they can be identified by the clubbers and exempted
on the killing field. These shaved heads constitute a large part of the animals turned
back at each killing. It is to be noted that among those turned back without brand
thece are none which show evidence of the clipping of last season. It may be inferred,
therefore, that the fur and water hair is replaced during the winter. The identification
mark is not a permanent thing, but one designed to serve for the current killing season.
To insure these animals exemption for breeding purposes next year they must be again
shaved next June.
276 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
In the killing this morning it may be noted that 27 animals with shaved heads,
designated as 3-year-olds, were released, but of the unbranded animals released only
5 are designated as 4-year-olds. It is only a supposititious case, but if we assume that
twenty-seven 3-year-olds were exempted by the shaving of last season, here are only
5 that have successfully run the gauntlet of the second year.
In a word the marking of a 2 or 3 year old seal by a temporary mark which is obliter-
ated by the following season, the animal still being killable as a 3 or 4 year old, is futile
for the purpose of establishing a breeding reserve.
There is another criticism that may justly be brought against this method of marking;
that is, clipping or shaving the head—it does not in any way impair the value of the
skin. Undoubtedly this is a provision to prevent loss through carelessness. If a
clubber accidently strikes a shaved seal its skin is as good as any other, and such
accidents occur, although infrequently.
The criticism, however, lies in this: The skin is just as valuable to the pelagic sealer
asifit were not marked. The shaving of the head is a good plan for identification by
the clubber. It would be unwise to attempt to burn a brand on the seal at this point,
but while the animal is caught for the purpose of shaving, a permanent burned brand
should be placed on the back or shoulder which will mar the value of the skin to the
pelagic sealer. Ifit mars the value of the skin also from the company’s point of view,
then greater care should be taken in clubbing the animals. The present plan puts a
premium on carelessness, and an animal exempted this season is liable to be killed
next season. The only way to prevent this is to shave the head of this year’s 2-year-old
next year as a 3-year-old, and again as a 4-year-old the third season; all of which is a
useless waste of energy. (Report Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, pp. 885, 886; Appen-
dix A, June 24, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.)
In getting the Hitchcock minimum limit of “54 pounds” REDUCED to
“5 pounds,” Lembkey and Liebes succeeded in getting vt done without any
warrant, in 1906, and so confess it, when cross-examined, to wit:
[Hearing No. 9, pp. 449-451, 450, April 13, 1912.]
Mr. Extiorr. 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. LemBxey. 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.
a Exxrorr. Was he not impressed with the fact that you were taking yearling
skins?
Mr, Lempxey. No, he was not.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yet he fixed the limit five and one-half pounds?
Mr. Lempxey. He did it solely as I have stated—to place the limit so high that you
nor any other man could make any objection to the policy of the department.
Mr. Exxtiotr. That was very correct on his part, was it not?
The CHAarrMAN. Never mind about that.
Mr. Exxtiorr. When Mr. Hitchcock left the department who succeeded him?
Mr. Lempxey. As chief clerk? I think Mr. Bowen did.
Mr. Exziorr. Mr. Bowen. Did you again renew your recommendation?
Mr. Lempxey. I do not remember that I recommended that the weight be reduced
to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Exxiorr. That order of reduction was made in 1906?
Mr. Lemspxey. In 1906.
Mr. Extiorr. Who was the chief clerk then?
Mr. LEmMBKEY. I presume Mr. Bowen was.
Mr. Exuiotr. And you again made the recommendation?
Mr. Lempxey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no. The recommendation was made, I think, to
the Secretary, but 1t was made through Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, who
then had charge of the seal business.
Mr. Exuiotr. Have you any table of weight measurement of your own making which
warranted you in making that recommendation?
Mr. LemBxey. I had not. I expressed that as my opinion.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. DATET|
THE ‘‘SALT WEIGHT’ DECEPTION BY LEMBKEY, IN 1904; REPEATED BY
MARSH, 1911; AND SWORN TO, BY EVERMANN, JULY 30, 1912, IN
ORDER TO DECEIVE AND FALSIFY THE RECORD OF KILLING YEARLING
SEALS.
The trick —He “shakes all the salt off,” then weighs them after siz
days’ curing.
[P. 79.—Appendix A; Lembkey, Sept. 7, 1904.]
EXPERIMENTS IN WEIGHTS OF SALTED SKINS,
In connection with the weighing of individual skins on the killing field, it was
thought wise to determine whether or not skins gained or lost weight after being salted.
Should any discrepancy of this kind occur, the weights of these skins in London
would not coincide with those taken on the islands.
On July 17, 107 skins taken at Tolstoi were weighed individually, and, after being
immersed in salt water to keep them moist during the journey from the field to the
salt house, were salted. Their aggregate weight on the field before wetting was 705
pounds. On July 23 they were taken out of salt and reweighed, when their aggregate
weight was 7593 pounds, a gain of 544 pounds on 107 skins, er one-half pound a skin,
As the salt was thoroughly shaken off these skins, the accretion of water trom dipping
them in the lagoon may be represented by the gain in weight.
On July 26 I weighed 100 skins, nearly dry, on a platform scales at the salt house,
finding them to weigh 6444 pounds. They were then salted. On July 30 they were
hauled out of salt and reweighed, when their combined weight was 6434 pounds, a
loss of 1 pound on 100 skins. These may be taken as typical to show the effect of
salt and water upon skins. I was not able to experiment with perfectly dry skins
after the date mentioned, but I believe the latter will show a slight loss of weight
after being in salt for a period.
Very truly, yours, W. I. LemMBKey,
Agent in Charge Seal Fisheries.
Mr. F. H. Hircscocr,
Chief Clerk, Department of Commerce and Labor. °*
Lembkey has not truthfully stated this expervment: He made the
following entry himself, in the official journal of his office on St. Paul
Island and did not water those skins, then (that was an afterthought)
he does not shake off all the salt, either. (P. 149.)
SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1904,
On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi were weighed and salted. To-day they
were hauled out of the kench and reweighed. At the time of killing they weighed
705 pounds, and on being taken out they weighed 7594 pounds, a gain in salting of
544 pounds, or one-half pound per skin.
Then, Lembkey swears, April 13, 1912, that he has never weighed
these skins after salting.—(p. 446 Hearing No. 9, H. Com. Exp. Dept.
Com. & Labor.)
Mr. Ex1iorr. Mr. Lembkey, you say you have never weighed
these skins after you have salted them? You have never weighed
them ?
__Mr. Lempxey. I have never weighed them after the salting on the
islands; no, sir.
Lembkey’s trick is repeated by Marsh and Evermann, 8 years
later. (Hearing No. 14; pp. 974, 975; July 29, 1912.)
Dr. Evermann. Last year, when Mr. M. C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service, went
to the Pribilof Islands, he was instructed to make certain investigations, one of which
was to determine by actual experiment the effect that salting has upon the weight of
fur-seal skins. He made a very careful investigation of the matter, and his report
278 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
has just been received. It is so interesting and valuable that I wish to put it in the
record. His investigation settles the question conclusively and for all time. It shows
that salting causes fur-seal skins to lose weight. ‘The report is as follows:
* * * * * * *
“* The average loss of weight for the whole 60 skins is 0.63 pound, or 10 ounces. This
is an understatement of the average loss of weight, which, I believe, is at least an ounce
greater. The reason is that 7t 7s practically impossible to mechanically remove all the
salt from the skins before reweighing. They were shaken, swept, and brushed, but a few
grains and crystals of salt were always left adhering to each side of the skin. Obviously
it would not do to wash them off. By more carefully cleaning a few of the re-
weighed skins and then again weighing them, I estimate this residual salt to average
an ounce or something more.”’
Against the above, observe the following facts, to wit:
In the village salt house, St. Paul Island, July 29, 1913, 400 fur-
seal skins which had been taken July 7, 1913, weighed ‘‘green,” and
put into salt there, were taken out of the kench, salted, and bun-
dled for shipment, and then weighed. This weighing declared the
fact that the salt-cured skins had been increased over their ‘‘green”
weights all the way from a minimum of one-half pound to a maxi-
mum of 14 pounds per skin. (See table of 400 skins; pp. 102-105;
Rept. Spl. Agents; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913.)
SELF-CONFESSED OFFICIAL DECEIT IN RE YEARLING SEALSKINS.
To show that Mr. Lembkey in his report to the Secretary of Com-
merce for 1904 was deliberately deceiving the department as to the
size and weight of yearling sealskins, the following deadly parallel on
himself is drawn, since it is of his own making.
On September 7, 1904, Lembkey says im his official report (p. 77.
Appendix A):
On July 1 there were 3 yearling seals in the drives at Northeast Point. One of them,
a typical specimen, was knocked down at my direction to ascertain the weight of the
skin. It was found to be a female. The carcass before sticking weighed 34 pounds,
and the skin taken off hurriedly, with considerable loose blubber adhering, weighed
41 pounds. The removal of this loose blubber left the skin weighing only 34 pounds,
While no further effort was made to determine the weight of yearling skins,
this instance shows that the skins of this class of animals are far below the limit of
weight now prescribed by the department, and are too small to have appeared in
the company’s catch at any time, except by an accident in clubbing.
Then, on April 13, 1912, to the House committee, he testifies that
he knows that yearling sealskins weigh from 4 to 43 pounds (see p.
435, Hearing No. 9), to wit:
Mr. Lempxey. As I stated to the committee, I knew nothing whatever about the
measurements.
Mr. Exuiorr. How do you know anything about the weights?
Mr. Lempxey. Because I have taken the weights.
Mr. Extiorr. Oh, you have?
Mr. LemBxey. | have taken the weights on the island of all sealskins weighed there.
Mr. Extrorr. You have? I want to call your attention to this, and the attention of
the committee. You say you have taken note of the weights?
Mr. Lemsxey. I have testified before the committee that every skin taken on the
islands except a few that inadvertently were omitted were weighed there.
Mr. Exuiorr. What is the weight of a yearling fur-seal skin?
Mr, Lempxey. I weighed very few yearling skins, but they would usually run up
to 4 or 4? pounds.
>
On April 13, 1912, when under oath before the House Committee
on Expenses in the Department of Commerce and Labor, Mr. Lembkey
testified that the length of a yearling seal of his own identification
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.«<B. Crowley, says: ‘‘The killing is entirely directed by the agents of the lessees,
who direct the grade of seals to be taken.”
Mr. CLrark. I know nothing of that. I have never seen it.
The CHarrMAN. I suppose this next line is only commentary to
that:
Thus the order of J. Stanley Brown of July 8, 1892, was acquiesced in by both Crow-
ley and Dr. Jordan.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 547
Mr. Ciark. I do not know who made that statement, therefore I
do not know anything about its truth.
The CHarRMAN. Crowley was there on the island, was he not ?
Mr. CirarKx. That does not connect Dr. Jordan with it.
The CHarRMAN. You were there with him, were you not ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
The CHarRMAN. Did you see Crowley there ?
Mr. CLrarKk. Crowley was the agent of the Government in charge.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Clark, you were interrupted a while ago when
you were making a statement as to the authority of Dr. Jordan and
what he did. Were you through with that statement ?
Mr. CLarx. No. I want to make this final remark about the
killing of 1896 and 1897. As I have already pointed out, we had a
keen British commission there, prejudiced in favor of the idea that
land killing was responsible for a part, at least, of the diminution of
the had. That is why we struggled with this question of the quota.
On page 243 of volume 1, of the Jordan commission’s report, is the
joint agreement on the question of land sealing of this American-
British Commission, of which Dr. Jordan was the head for the United
States, and Dr. Thompson, of University College, Dundee, Scotland,
head for Great Britain. It is in section 9 of this report, which begins
at page 240 of this volume No. 1:
The methods of driving and killing practiced on the islands, as they have come
under our observation during the past two seasons, call for no criticism or objection.
An adequate supply of bulls is present on the rookeries; the number of older bachelors
rejected in the drives during the period in question is such as to safeguard in the
immediate future a similarly adequate supply; the breeding bulls, females, and pups
on the breeding rookeries are not disturbed; there is no evidence or sign of impair-
ment of virility of males; the operations of driving and killing are conducted skillfully
and without inhumanity.
Dr. Jordan studied the question of killing, and that is his view of
it; and not merely his view, but it is the view of the British commis-
sion uniting with him. I submit to this committee that that must
answer the charge against Dr. Jordan of responsibility for killing
yearlings or for any form of illegal killing that is alleged to have
occurred in 1896-97.
The CuarrMan. Was it agreed that the lessees should do the
killing ?
Mr. Crark. That was a matter with which we had nothing to do.
Mr. SterHens. Who did control that ?
Mr. CrarK. The agent of the Government controlled the killing
and was present at every killing.
The CHarrman. Who was he?
Mr. Crarx. Joseph B. Crowley; and he ordered the drives and was
on the killing field, but of course the representative of the lessees was
there also.
ce STEPHENS. Was not Mr. Crowley the agent of the lessee him-
self ?
Mr. CiarK. No, he was not. Joseph Stanley Brown was the agent
of the company.
Mr. McGuire. On page 58, as to “indisputable fact No. I,” there
are some observations. What have you to say about those ?
Mr. Crarx. This indisputable fact entered as No. I, on page 58,
and repeated at page 183 of this hearing, is the keynote of the whole
548 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
present situation, and I wish to discuss it at some length. The state-
ment is this:
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,
Mr. McGuire. Whose statement is that ?
Mr. Cuark. That statement is made in the report of Messrs. Henry
W. Elhott and Andrew F. Gallagher, for 1913.
Mr. McGuire. You may proceed.
Mr. CrarK. The importance of this statement will be recalled to
members here if you have in mind the speech which Senator Benjamin
F. Shively made on the bill in 1912, I think on August 15, in which
he took as his thesis the fact that the Russians never killed anything
but bachelors.
The CHairMAN. If this is merely to be a criticism or correction of
Senator Shively’s remarks, I do not see why we should go into that.
Mr. McGuire. I suggest Mr. Clark be allowed to make his statement
in his own way.
The CHarrMaNn. I do not wish to curtail him, but I would like to
do it as expeditiously as possible. When we strike anything that
looks to me as if it might have no bearing, I am going to call attention
to it.
Mr. McGuire. But this has a bearing. I have gone over the
matter with him, and his own statement is the best evidence of that.
The CuarrMan. I suppose the best way to get along is by going
ahead.
Mr. CrarK. Also a speech by Hon. William S. Goodwin, in the
House, in which he made the statement that the Russians held the
breeding grounds and female seals in reverential awe. These two
speeches, it seemed to me, influenced the act of Congress which
established the present closed season. I want to develop an answer
to this “indisputable fact No. I.”
Mr. SrepuEns. Is that disputed by anyone?
Mr. CLrarK Yes. I wish very much to dispute it.
The author of this statement, at page 58, is Mr. Henry W. Elhott.
I have here a book known as “‘The Seal Islands of Alaska,’’ of which
Mr. Henry W. Elhott is the author. At page 140 of this book we
have a translation by the author of Veniaminof’s article from the
Zapieskie, published at St. Petersburg in 1842, Volume II, page
568 ff. This indisputable fact says that the Russians never killed
females. On page 140 of Mr. Elhott’s book occurs this statement:
From this time (St. George, 1808, and St. Paul, 1810) up to 1822, taking of fur seals
progressed on both islands without economy and with slight circumspection, as if
there was a race in killing for the most skins. Cows were taken in the drives and
killed, and were also driven from the rookeries to places where they were slaughtered.
Mr. McGuire. Who made that statement ?
Mr. Crarx. Mr. Henry W. Elliott is translating it here from
Veniaminof.
The CuarrMAN. Does not that sound pretty much like the language
in your report ?
Mr. Crark. I do not see any similarity to it. I never mentioned
the killmg of cows—that is, in my report.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 549
At the paragraph next to the bottom of page 140 is this:
After this, when it was 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 the grown seals and young females, which came in with the
droves of killing seals, and to endeavor to separate, if possible, these from those which
should be slain.
In the first paragraph, cows were driven and killed; and young
females are here killed. That is a translation of the official record
of Russian conditions.
Mr. McGuire. A translation by Mr. Elliott?
Mr. Cuark. A translation by Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is right. _
Mr. CrarKk. That Mr. Elhott did not misunderstand what Venia-
minof was saying, I quote from a footnote on page 143, which is
initialed by Mr. Elliott, ““H. W. E.’’:
These suggestions of Veniaminof were, however, a vast improvement on the work
as it was conducted, and they were adopted at once; but it was not until 1845 that the
great importance of never disturbing the breeding seals was recognized.
That means that prior to 1845 the Russians disturbed the breeding
seals, if language means anything.
The CHarrMaNn. Mr. Elhott suggests that the full quotation be
read.
Mr. Crark. It is as follows, and refers to a hypothetical table com-
piled by Veniaminof:
I translate the chapter of Veniaminof’s without abridgement, 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 from close observation of their lives,
should then be fitted to prepare rules and regulations founded upon this knowledge.
These suggestions of Veniaminof were, however, a vast improvement on the work as
it was conducted, and they were adopted at once; but it was not until 1845 that the
great importance of never disturbing the breeding seals was recognized.—H. W. E.
At page 166 Mr. Elliott says, referring to an old letter from a
“Creole”’ agent of the Russian-American Co., on St. Paul in 1847:
This is interesting, because it is the record of the first killing on the seal islands when
the females were entirely exempted from slaughter.
At page 167 Mr. Elliott comments further on this matter as follows:
Is 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, of 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 Pribilof Islands; it was done in 1847 for the first
time, and has been rigidly followed ever since, giving the full expansion in 1857 to
that extraordinary increase and beneficial result which we observe thereon to-day.
The effect to which he is referring is that which he saw demon-
strated on the rookeries in 1872-1874.
Mr. SrePHEns. [| fail to see the bearing it has on the question at
issue here.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Elliott has contradicted himself in his two
reports, pointedly and decisively.
Mr. Ciark. I wish to make another point. This is from the report
of 1890 by Henry W. Elliott also.
The CHarrMAN. You told us that people learn in this business as
they get more experience.
550 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Ciark. I would like to develop this point. It is very impor-
tant.
Mr. StepHens. What is the date of the report from which you are
reading ?
Mr. CLARK. 1890.
Mr. SrepHens. And the date of the other one was what ?
Mr. Ciark. 1872-1874. In the 1890 report, the second paragraph
on page 136 begins as follows:
A study of this killing throughout the “‘zapooska” of 1834, on the St. Paul Island,
shows that for a period of seven years, from 1835 down to the close of the season of 1841,
me co practically were killed save those that were needed for food and clothing by
the natives—
This which follows is in italics:
and that in 1835, for the first time in the history of this industry on these islands, was the
vital principle of not killing female seals recognized.
Then follow a few sentences that are not important, but the para-
graph ends with this sentence:
This protracted driving after the breaking up of the breeding season by the end of
July caused them to take up, at first, hundreds, and thousands later on, of the females
in the same manner that they had been driven up during the last two seasons from 1889
and 1890; but they never spared those cows then, when they arrived in the droves on
the killing grounds prior to this date, above quoted, of 1835.
Mr. Elliott says now that Veniaminof was full of errors and denies
his own interpretations of Veniaminof and makes to your committee
this positive statement, that—
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.
The CuarrMan. If you are through with that, I want to call your
attention to page 866 of appendix A, paragraph 2 2 on that page, which
is a part of your report, and I will ask whether that is not almost
identical with the complaint that the Russians made.
Mr. Cuark. It is difficult for me to carry out what I consider
necessary in developing these important things if I am to be inter-
rupted by extraneous matters in this way.
The CuarrMAn. I thought you were through.
Mr. CiarKk. If this translation which I have read of Veniaminof is
at fault or is not correct, then I want to turn to what we may consider
as a correct translation of Veniaminof. This is made by Prof.
Raphael Zon, of the United States Forest Service. It was made last
year, and it is submitted as an appendix to my report for 1912. It
is a translation of the same article from which I quoted, the translation
in the former case being by Mr. Henry W. Elliott.
The Cuarrman. Is this on the same subject and along the same
line ?
Mr. CLtarK. I want to take a translation that is not repudiated
and is vouched for by Prof. Raphael Zon, a Russian scholar, because
Mr. Elliott has now repudiated his own tr: -anslation.
Mr. Exxiorr. I have not.
The CHarrMAN. I do not want to string this out all the way. You
claim you have contradicted Mr. Elhott “at several points. What is
the use of getting somebody’s opinion in here that perhaps does not
live any more?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 551
Mr. Crark. If Mr. Elhott denies his statement
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). About a subject that really has no
material bearing, in my judgment, on what we are discussing
Mr. Ciarx. It is put in here twice as an indisputable fact and it is
the most vital fact of this book if it were true. 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.
lf 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.
The CuartrMaNn. Is not the proposition that you are discussing now
practically what you said in paragraph 2, page 866, Appendix A of
your report ?
Mr. Cuark. I do not see any similarity between the statements.
Mr. Exxiorr. It is the same killing he described.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Chairman, this is developing the same point
and the most material point of Mr. Elhott’s statements. It1is not only
-material to have him develop further this point or to give us all there
1s with reference to Mr. Elliott’s contradictions as he sees them, but it
s material, and very material, because it involves the question which
we argued in the House at such great length, of the effect of pelagic
sealing, and the further this point is developed the more light it throws
not only upon Mr. Elliott’s contradictory statements but upon the
question of the killing of females through pelagic sealing at sea. I
suggest that we be permitted to proceed with this.
The CHarrMan. I wish to say that I have seen about enough incon-
sistencies on the part of these scientists, who constantly dispute one
another, and it is enough to make a man’s headache. The only rea-
son I suggest this is that we would like to get a limit in the discussion.
Mr. McGurre. This is one of the most material points that has
een up.
The ioecirarhos? I suppose, as the old saying is, that we will get
along quicker by going ahead.
Mr. McGurre. We are trying to get at the facts of what the Rus-
sians did which have a bearing not only on Mr. Ellott’s statements,
but also on the question of pelagic sealing, which we argued in the
House and which was discussed at some length by members of
Congress who claimed that pelagic sealing was not responsible for the
diminution of the herd. This is important information. We never
have had any more important information than this one point.
The CoarrMan. We might as well go ahead with it, but I really do
not see the materiality of it.
Mr. Crarx. Mr. Elliott, in his monograph did not completely
translate Veniaminof’s article. Prof. Raphael Zon has made a com-
plete translation. At page six of Zon’s manuscript, which is page
353 of the Zapiski article, occurs this statement; Veniaminof is
defining the classes of seals:
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 seal used in the trade.
That is a positive statement by Veniaminof that the Russians
killed the pups chiefly, and killed them, males and females.
552 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
At page 19 of Zon’s manuscript, which is page 360 of the Zapiski
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 the most ruinous
for the increase of the herd.
At page 26 of Zon’s manuscript, which is page 364 of the Zapiski
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.
I showed from Mr. Elliott’s translation that they killed cows and
young females. Here is a charge by Veniaminof that they killed
pups without discrimination, both males and females.
he CHAIRMAN. Was that for food or commercial purposes ?
Mr. CLark. Commercial purposes.
Mr. STEPHENS. That is, the Russians did this killing ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, the Russians did this killing.
Mr. STEPHENS. In what years?
Mr. Crark. Prior to 1834. I am submitting it as evidence in
dispute of what is called an “indisputable fact” to the effect that
they did not kill females.
On page 28 of Zon’s manuscript, which is page 365 of the Zapiski
article, is this statement:
After the drives, which often take place as many as three times in the same place,
the mother seals for several days roam around the shores, crying pitifully for their
young.
Now, so much for the killing of females.
As to disturbance of the females, I wish to cite this description of
the Russian methods of sealing, Zon’s manuscript 23 (363):
After having chosen favorable weather and wind, irrespective of the time of day,
all inhabitants—men, women, and children—arm themselves with smaJl 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 dis-
crimination, inland. After having driven them some distance, they stop them, and
begin to separate mother seals and sikatchi, the latter very seldom present, from the
pups. 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 in order to drive them into the sea,
The CHArRMAN. They had the same habits then that they have
now ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes. And all these animals, young and old, are
driven ay in this heterogeneous mass, and then culled over; and I wish
I could draw a picture of the injury to mothers and young that must
have been done on the killing field. j
The CHarrMAN. I wish you would follow the field in another
direction.
Mr. McGuire. Were you through, Mr. Clark, with your statement
with respect to ‘‘indisputable fact No. 1”? Have you covered that
point fully ? ‘
Mr. CLarx. Well, I submit that these two translations which I
have read disprove the alleged fact. That is all. But I wish also
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 553
to answer certain charges against Dr. Jordan which are referred to
here.
Mr. McGuire. I was going to ask you about that; so you may go
ahead with your statement on that.
Mr. CrarKk. At page 185 of this document is this statement; it is
in large type:
Dr. Jordan deliberately falsifies the Russian record in re not killing female seals.
The CHAIRMAN. Page 185?
Mr. CLark. Yes, sir,
Mr. McGurre. Who made that statement ?
Mr. CrarK. Henry W. Elbott.
Mr. STEPHENS. Page 185 of what hearing?
Mr. CrarKk. The first hearing—of January 17, 1914. At page 258
of the same report it is repeated in large type:
Dr. Jordan deliberately falsifies the Russian record in re not killing female seals. —
On page 411, of the same report, it is stated:
Dr. Jordan falsifies Yanovsky’s official report to the Secretary of the Treasury to
justify the untruth stated in re ‘‘ Russian killing of male and female seals alike.’’
That, I submit to this committee, is a serious charge to make
against a man of the eminence and character of Dr. Jordan. Let me
quote what Dr. Jordan did say, from se 25 of his report.
Mr. STEPHENS. What is the date of report?
Mr. Ciark. It is for 1896 and 1897. (Reading:)
They, however, attempted to limit the extent, rather than reform the character of
the slaughter. They still continued to kill males and females alike.
Dr. Jordan based that remark on these quotations that I have
read to you. I submit that he was justified in making that state-
ment—that the Russians killed the fur seals, male and female alike.
Mr. StePHENS. Who is it that is referred to there as having killed
them ?
Mr. Crarx. The Russians, prior to 1834.
Mr. McGuire. Then Dr. Jordan agrees with the official Russian
report ?
Mr. CLARK. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. With respect to the manner in which the Russians
killed the males and females?
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And it is in his agreement with that report that
oe Elliott said that Dr. Jordan had falsified the records; is that the
act ?
Mr. Crarx. That is it. He makes also a specific reference here to
a quotation which Dr. Jordan made in his next paragraph, on page
25. Dr. Jordan is quoting from the report of a Russian agent,
Yanovsky, in 1820, and the quotation is this:
If any of the young breeders are not killed by the autumn, they are sure to be killed
in the following spring.
Mr. McGutre. Whose statement is that ?
Mr. CrarKk. That is the statement which Dr. Jordan quotes from.
Yanovsky, a Russian agent.
The CHarrMAN. That was about 1820, was it not?
Mr. Ciarx. 1820; yes.
The CaarrMan. Can you read Russian ?
554 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. No; I can not. On page 186, to take one of these
three instances, Mr. Elliott says:
In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should have gone out
of his way to misquote another authority who has explicitly denied the killing of
female seals by the Russians. On page 25 Dr. Jordan’s own statement is—
and I have read that. Mr. Elliott goes on to say:
Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky correctly. He has
deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this Russian agent, and put another and
entirely diiferent statement in his mouth.
Then follows a quotation, in which the word “bachelors” is used,
instead of the words ‘‘ young breeders,”’ which Dr. Jordan used.
The CuarrMan. Why do you not read the quotation while you are
at it; because here is the original from which it is translated ?
Mr. CrarK. I would like to save time, but I want to read it from
the reference which Mr. Elliott gives, from the original of the book.
The CHarrman. I know; but you have used the commentary;
why not read the original ?
Mr. CrarK. I want to read this quotation from its source; I was
the secretary, and I got the quotation, and that is why I am answering
it.
Mr. McGurre. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if he wants to read
the quotation from Mr. Elhott’s report, he should be allowed to do so.
The CHarrMAN. But he commented on this [indicating paper in
chairman’s hand].
Mr. McGuire. Not on the same thing ?
The CuarrMAN. Yes; he says the quotation is false.
Mr. Crark. Now, at the bottom of this quotation by Henry W.
Ellott it has the reference, ‘‘ Appendix to United States Fur Seal
Arbitration; Letter No. 6, page 58, March 15, 1821.” That is sup-
osed to be a reference conclusively proving that Dr. Jordan, when
1e said “young breeders,”’ instead of “bachelors,” falsified the report
of the Russian agent.
The CHAIRMAN. But is it not a fact that he means to state that Dr.
Jordan did not correctly report what this man says ?
Mr. CiarK. That is exactly what I want to get at.
Here is volume 2, and it is the Case of the United States, Appendix
1, and it is at page 58, this very letter, which is dated March 15, 1821.
The words are:
Consequently, only the old breeding animals remain, and if any of the young
breeders are left alive in the autumn, they are sure to be killed the next spring.
That is the quotation as Dr. Jordan used it.
Now, I have quoted from the book which Henry W. Elliott gives
as his authority, and it confirms Dr. Jordan absolutely.
Mr. McGuire. The Elliott quotation is not an accurate quotation
of Dr. Jordan, is it ?
Mr. Crarx. Not at all.
Mr. McGurre. They are entirely different ?
Mr. CirarKk. 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 translation uses the
word “bachelor” instead of ‘‘young breeders.” But the point I
want to get at is that Dr. Jordan is charged with falsifying a record
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 555
and altering a quotation, while the reference itself disproves the
charge. This charge of falsification against Dr. Jordan is not founded
in fact, and is untrue.
The CuarrMAn. Then would you suppose that there is one side of
this that supports Mr. Elliott’s theory and another side that supports
the Jordan theory ?
Mr. CrarKk. 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. CrarK. I had a Russian scholar by the name of M. Lippett
Larkin, an instructor in Stanford University, translate this letter
from the fac simile
The CHatrMAN. Mr. Clark, you see we get into interminable trouble
by going along the way we do.
Mr. McGurre. 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 willfully makes a misstatement. So that is
the idea developed on these two points. There are two translations;
Mr. Elliott takes one and Dr. Jordan takes the other. Mr. Elliott
takes one translation and says that Dr. Jordan was willfully falsifying
in making a certain statement, when reference to the translation used
by Dr. Jordan makes his statement absolutely true.
The CHArRMAN. Yes; and the witness would like to convince the
committee that Mr. Elliott makes willful misstatements; so that we
are getting out the same end either way.
Mr. McGurre. Well, we can argue that later, when we come to
make our report—and I have some well-defined ideas about that.
The CHarrMan. Well, I only made that remark because we are
getting at nothing.
Mr. McGuire. But this is certainly important, Mr. Chairman,
because it shows that Mr. Elliott took one translation and Dr. Jordan
took the other.
Mr. StepHens. I would lke to ask, for my own information,
what is the difference between a ‘“‘bachelor”’ and a ‘‘young breeder’ ?
Mr. Crarx. A “‘bachelor” is a young male; and a “‘young breeder’’
would mean either a male or a female.
Mr. STEPHENS. You would have to couple the two when it says
‘“‘the breeding animals remain”; that means both male and female ?
Mr. Crarx. The statement is—only the ‘‘old breeding animals
remain”; then, that if not killed in the autumn, the ‘‘young breeders”’
are sure to be killed in the following spring.
Mr. STEPHENS. What is a young animal ?
Mr. CiarK. One under 4 months old.
Mr. STEPHENS. Suppose they are 3 or 4 years old?
Mr. McGurre. Excuse me, Mr. Stephens, but I think members
of the committee do not clearly distinguish between a bachelor and
a young breeder. Will you explain that, Mr. Clark.
Mr. CLarx. The point is that the ‘‘young breeder” would be either
a female or a male, where a ‘“‘bachelor”’ would be just a male, and
could not be anything else.
556 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. SterHens. Possibly that is the difficulty between Mr. Elliott
and Dr. Jordan.
Mr. CrarK. But the point I want to get clear before this commit-
tee is that Dr. Jordan is accused of taking this translation out of this
book [indicating book in witness’s hand] by specific reference and
willfully mistranslating it or misstating it.
Now, your committee has given honorable publication to that
slander against Dr. Jordan in three places in this record, and all I
want to do is to answer it. I have done so by Mr. Elliott’s own refer-
eee which I have read to you, and which supports Dr. Jordan abso-
utely.
The CuarrMan. The committee has not given any honorable pub-
lication to those reports. They were simply received and ordered to
be printed as part of the hearings.
Mr. MoGurre. Yes.
The CHarrMan. Which leaves the matter open to explanation.
There was no intention of publishing anything against anybody.
The committee wants to clear the matter up and do justice to every-
body concerned—and we could do that if these scientists did not
confuse us too much.
Mr. CiarK. That is what I am here to explain. I call the attention
of the committee to the fact that this document comes to the presi-
dent of Stanford University, California, with the frank of the chair-
man upon it; it comes to the professor of Germanic literature, and
to the professor of zoology at the Stanford University, under the
frank of the chairman, and to the president of our board of trustees.
The CHArRMAN. Well, that was Just to give them notice of it.
Mr. Crarx. It is, however, a pretty hard thing to tell a man that
he has falsified a record when the reference which the man who
makes the charge against him uses supports absolutely the man
against whom the charge is made.
I would like to call attention to the fact of this. Here is a clipping
from the Minneapolis Journal, a newspaper of my own home city.
Mr. MoGurre. Of what date?
Mr. CrarK. Of January 25, 1914. The heading of it is:
Seal scandal likely to lead to court action. House committee likely to begin suit
to recover $30,000,000 damages. Immense profit by illegal sealing. Federal officials
charged with permitting violations of law. Accounting called for. Men alleged to
have been responsible called upon for explanation.
The CuarrMANn. Well, you see these were only reports and state-
ments submitted; and the committee took official action that nothing
could be done except to receive the reports and print them as part of
the hearings. That left it open for explanation. Nobody intended to
charge anybody with anything so far as the committee is concerned.
Mr. Crark. But there were four columns of this from the New York
Times, in which these charges were made, and the people of the coun-
try, as shown by these clippings [indicating papers in witness’s hand]
have invariably taken it as a charge against Dr. Jordan, which Dr.
Jordan may have to meet, and may suffer court action for.
The CHArRMAN. But there has not been an intimation on the part of
the committee, that I know of, that anybody was to be arrested—
except that we filed a formal report of this committee, in which the
committee recommended that civil proceedings ought to be started
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 557
against men who may have violated the law. But there was no
reference to any criminal action at all.
Mr. McGurre. By the way, Mr. Chairman, there was a minority
report in that case.
The CHarrMaNn. Yes; you filed a minority report.
Mr. McGuire. Has the Department of Justice ever paid any atten-
tion to the report of the majority of the committee ?
The CHarRMAN. No; you see there was no action taken on it in
the House.
Mr. McGuire. But has it been called to the attention of the De-
partment of Justice ?
The Cuarrman. No; not at all. You see, even the administra-
tion has changed since then. 2
Mr. McGuire. But certainly that would not stop justice, would
it? jLaughter.]
The chairman will not concede that that will prevent justice, will
he?
The Coarrman. No; but I mean there is nothing down there in the ~
department now. So far as this committee is concerned there was no
hint to the Department of Justice on the part of the chairman in the
formal report that such a thing ought to be done. We considered
that it was practically ended when the House could not act on the
report, because it did not have time enough in which to act.
Mr. McGutre. Yes; I can see that it was ended, too. IJ supposed
the investigation was through with; and this is all made necessary
by Mr. Elliott beg sent up there—the very man who made the
charges—being sent up there to find the truth.
The Cuarrman. No. I will tell you; it was made necessary by
some people who wrote letters to the committee and suggested that
an injustice was done, and so on; and I considered, for one, that if
anybody thought an injustice was done, we ought to go into it and
reach the bottom of it and clean it out,so that nobody would have any
cause for complaint. The fact of the matter is that this seemed to
be a regularly organized movement over in New York, headed by
Madison Grant, who states that the committee’s report was malicious
in the former committee. ,
Mr. McGurire. [I did not know anything about that. Was there
any former action ?
The CoarrMan. That it was untruthful, false, and malicious. And
if there is anybody who thinks that he was harmed, the time to say
so and explain why and how is just now, while this question is up;
a I think the matter ought to be cleared up until we touch We
ottom.
Mr. Crark. How can we recall the spreading of these charges all
over the country, attached to the names of Dr. Jordan, Dr. Stejne-
ger, Dr. Lucas, and myself? How can we recall it?
Mr. McGuire. You will get used to that when you get into politics.
[Laughter.] .
The CuarrMAn. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Chairman, at this juncture I suppose it will be
the proper time to inquire whether there was ever any formal action
of the committee dedi Mr. Elliott to Alaska ?
The CHatrman. Yes; we had a regular meeting and did so by
resolution.
558 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. McGuire. That is all news to me; I did not know it.
The CuarrmMan. Are there any other questions ?
Mr. McGurre. Yes; I want to examine Mr. Clark further. Now,
there has been something said about some letters—the Madison
Grant letters. What have you to say about those?
Mr. Crark. I did not quite intend to enter into that, but——
Mr. McGurre (uterposing). I want to know about that.
_Mr. Crarx. But it was brought in in my examination. The Mad-
ison Grant letters—that is something of a story.
Dr. Jordan received a letter from Madison Grant which contained
the franked envelope of a Member of Congress, and a copy of the
Congressional Record it contained, a speech by a Congressman, on
which there were notations—scurrilous notations injurious to Dr.
Jordan.
Mr. McGurre. Have you any of those notations with you, or those
documents ? ‘
Mr. Crark. The documents are in the hands of the Secretary of
Commerce. I put them together and loaned them to him for some
use to which he wished to put them, and they have not yet been,
returned to me.
But this document had been mailed—we had received several
copies of it under the frank of other Congressmen; but Madison
Grant had received, in conjunction with it, a postal card signed by
Henry W. Elliott, with some writing on it which corresponded
exactly to the writing on the edge of the Congressional Rear
Mr. McGutre. That was inclosed to these parties ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes; but the envelope itself was in an entirely differ-
ent handwriting, a very peculiar handwriting. Mr. Grant’s idea was
that Dr. Jordan had a case against either the Congressman or the
authorship of the writing, which he felt was established by this sig-
nature and copy. The thought was that here was a Government
document with private remarks of a revengeful nature on it, and it
had been circulated under the frank of a Congressman. ;
Mr. StepHens. I would like to know who that Congressman was
whose frank was used ?
Mr. CiarK. I would rather not be specific.
Mr. STEPHENS. It was not mine, was it?
Mr. CrarK. No.
Mr. Extiorr. It was William S. Goodwin, of Arkansas. He author-
ized me to send it; he had good reasons for it.
Mr. McGutre. Were there not severai franks of Members used ?
Mr. Ciarx. In the course of time there were, but these were all, I
believe, mailed under one Congressman’s frank. But in the end we
had a good many samples. Dr. Jordan put them together and mailed
them to the post-office authorities at Washington, asking that the
matter be looked into to see if anything could be done about it.
At the end of two months the documents were returned to us with
pps statement merely that the postal authorities had finished with
them.
The handwriting on the Madison Grant envelope was very peculiar,
and it clung in my memory. I looked up some correspondence that
I remembered in our university files of seven or eight years previous,
and I found that certain letters which were signed ‘‘Junius,”’ written
on the stationery of a hotel in Cleveland, Ohio, were in the same hand.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 559
These were addressed to Mrs. Stanford, or to members of our board
of trustees, perhaps. They were letters designed to disparage Dr.
Jordan, and the handwriting was the handwriting on the Madison
Grant envelope.
About that time there began to appear in the press of the EKast—
notably in the New York Times and in the Washington Star—letters
signed by ‘‘Amos Allen.” One of them was written from Ruther-
ford, N. J., and it criticised in a mean way Dr. Jordan. He wrote
to Rutherford, N. J., to Amos Allen, and the Jetter came back un-
opened. The language in these press letters was very similar to the
language in the ‘‘Junius”’ letter, and we suspected that there was
a connection between the two; but that was all we could get at the
time. A letter addressed to Amos Allen, in care of the Washington
Star, was also returned.
But while this was under discussion, there came to me a letter
written in this same peculiar handwriting and signed by ‘‘Amos
Allen.” It was written on the stationery of a Congressman from
Colorado, and the writer stated that he was from Colorado, a ranch-
man near Greeley. He criticized my statements regarding fur
seals, as if I was not informed, and he vouched for his own informa-
tion on the subject that he had been a next-door neighbor to Col.
Joseph Murray, who was chief agent on the islands, and had talked
with him.
I replied to Amos Allen and I sent a copy of my letter to the Con-
gressman from Colorado, calling attention to and assigning as my
reason for addressing him the fact that the letter had come to me
written on his stationery. He said that he knew no one by the
name of Amos Allen and no one by that name had authority to use
his stationery in that way. In the meantime I got a second letter
from Amos Allen
Mr. GurrE (interposing). Was that letter on the Congressman’s
stationery franked ?
Mr. CiarK. No.
Mr. McGurre. It was just on his stationery ?
Mr. Cirarxk. Yes; the postage was paid on it.
Mr. McGuire. I see.
Mr. Ciarx. This second letter stated that Amos Allen was re-
turning to Colorado. I wrote then to him in Greeley, Colo., and I
- wrote also to a friend in Greeley, asking him about Amos Allen;
I received a repiy that he was not known there. But later on it was
discovered there had been an Amos Allen there 10 years previously,
and that he had moved to Keokuk, Iowa. <A letter to Amos Allen
at Keokuk, Iowa, was returned unopened. The Amos Allen letters
had, however, given a street address in Washington, 210 Delaware
Avenue, and I sent a copy of one of the letters to the Bureau of
Fisheries. Perhaps I sent the original letter.
Mr. McGutre. That was the Amos Allen letter ?
Mr. Crarx. Yes. And I understand, indirectly, that the Bureau
of Fisheries communicated with 210 Delaware Avenue, and did not
find that anybody of the name of Amos Allen was there, but that it
was the boarding house of Mr. Henry W. Elliott.
As one of the reasons for his knowledge of fur seals, Mr. Allen said
that he was a relative of Dr. Joel A. Allen, of the American Museum
of Natural History, who is an authority on the seal. I wrote to Dr.
560 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Joel Allen, and found that he was n Europe. A reply came from his
assistant, Mr. Roy C. Andrews, to the effect that Amos Allen was not
a relative of Dr. Allen, but that he knew who Amos Allen was, namely,
Mr. Henry W. Elliott. He sent to me two letters written to him,
one by Amos Allen and another by Henry W. Elliott, which he be-
lieved connected Mr. Hlhott with this correspondence.
Now, while the debate in the House was on over the omission of
the agents from the appropriation bill
The CHaArRMAN (interposing). Well, one moment, before you go
any further. Do you know that Dr. Jordan sent a telegram to the
Members of the House of Representatives, while the discussion was
going on in the House, about having a closed season, stating that
Henry W. Elhott was the chief instigator of this legislation and that
he had been for 20 years the head of the Pelagic Sealers’ Association ?
Mr. Crarx. I have seen such a telegram in the
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Did you write it for him ?
Mr. CLrarx. No.
The CHarrMan. Did you see it ?
Mr. Cuark. I presume I did.
The Cuarrman. Did you see my answer, when I informed Dr. Jor-
dan that this committee would be very much interested if he could
give me, as Chairman, the authenticity or proof that Mr. Elhott was
at the head of the Pelagic Sealers’ Association—the pelagic sealers’
lobby—the word ‘‘lobby’”’ was used; that he had been such for 20
years; and that Dr. Jordan replied to me by wire that he could not
do it, that it was only a matter of inference ?
Mr. Crank. No; I do not know anything about that.
The Cuarrman. And yet his telegram was read in the House of
Representatives to influence legislation. Did you know that that
was done ? .
Mr. CLarx. I have read about that telegram in the hearings; yes.
The Cuarrman. No; about my asking him for the sources of his
information, so that the committee might have the benefit of it here,
as well as the Members of the House ?
Mr. CrarK. I do not recall that.
The Cuarrman. Well, I have the papers in my possession.
Mr. CiarK. Yes.
The CoarrmMan. And with the permission of the committee, I will
embody them in the hearings.
(The papers referred to are as follows:)
Pato Aro, Cau., February 14, 190—.
To Hon. Jno. H. RorHEerRMEL,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
Pelagic sealing interest only one favored by proposed prohibition of land Killing.
No question as to this lobby and its leadership, but no direct evidence that anybody
received pay for this work. Twenty years of active lobbying against legitimate inter-
est of fur-seal herd and directly favoring pelagic sealers is legitimate ground for inter-
ference [inference].
Davip Starr JORDAN.
Mr. McGurre. Were you through with your questions, Mr.
Chairman ?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
aoe McGurre. Then, will you proceed with your statement, Mr.
‘lark ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 561
Mr. Cuarx. There came to me under the frank of Senator Burn-
ham, a report of the debate on the elimination of the agents’ salaries
from the appropriation bill, and on that document were certain re-
marks about Mr. Lembkey, and about Secretary Nagel. JI remember
that the statement was that Secretary Nagel stood up for his men;
but they were let out just as he was let out at the November election.
Mr. McGuire. In whose handwriting was that?
Mr. Ciark. That was in the handwriting of Henry W. Elliott.
Tt closed with a Latin phrase, ‘Sic transit gloria Nagelius.”’
But the superscription of this letter was in a disguised, print hand-
writing, and was addressed to the “Academic Secretary, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, California.’ I wrote to Senator Burnham,
stating that I felt the receipt of a document like that under his frank
was something that ought to be explamed. I received a telegram
from him to the effect that the use of his frank for that purpose was
wholly uawarranted—by Mr. Henry W. Elliott or anybody else.
I believed that here was a case where Mr. Henry W. Elhott could
be made responsible, because we had the repudiation of the act by
the person whose frank was used.
The CHarrMAN. Well, that is neither here nor there, because that
is not in issue before this committee. But let me ask you—because
you have stated that you saw the telegram which Dr. Jordan sent
to the Members of the House of Representatives while this bill was
up on the floor for discussion, to have a closed season for seals—do
you know that Mr. Elliott was at the head of the pelagic sealers’
lobby ?
Mr. CrarKx. I do not know anything about that.
The CHarrmMan. Did you ever talk to Dr. Jordan about it ?
Mr. CuarK. I do not recall whether we talked about it or not; but
that, of course, was Dr. Jordan’s telegram.
The CHarrMan. Well, do you think that was eminently proper
for the great scientist and the head of this great university to send a
telegram to Congress to influence legislation if he could not give the
source of his information ?
Mr. Ciark. It was very difficult for us to understand
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). One moment, now. You have
praised Dr. Jordan. Do you think that was the right thing to do?
Mr. Cuarx. I think under the circumstances it was all right.
The CHarrMan. If it was not true ?
Mr. Crark. It has not been denied.
The CHarrMan. Well, he could not give me the information even
when I telegraphed to him.
Mr. Cuark. That, of course, would be a long history, because Dr.
Jordan and I have been
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). No; it is not a question of history.
I was very much disappointed in Dr. Jordan when I saw it; and I
immediately telegraphed him and told him that his telegram was
circulated in the House of Representatives, and that he ought to give
me the source of his information, because I wanted to know; but his
answer came back that he could not do it.
Mr. Crarx. That it was inference.
The CuHarrMAN. Yes; he made some statements and said that it
could be inferred.
53490—_14——36
562 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Bruckner. Did the original telegram state it as a fact, Mr.
Chairman ?
The Cuarrman. Oh, yes; that Mr. Elliott was at the head of the
pelagic sealers’ lobby for more than 20 years.
Mr. Bruckner. Stated that as a fact ?
The CHarrMAN. Yes; and it was circulated in the House.
Mr. Ciark. Regarding that I would say this: After 12 years of
struggle, Dr. Jordan and I were gratified to find that a treaty had
been concluded with Great Britain, Japan, and Russia to end
pelagic sealing on the 7th of July, 1911. We thought then that the
fur-seal herd was saved. Within 10 days afterwards we were sur-
aed to find a resolution offered on the floor of the House—I believe
y the Hon. John H. Rothermel—to suspend land sealing for 15
years. The treaty suspending pelagic sealing had for its consideration
that we should share with Great Britain and Japan a land catch, 15
per cent to each.
The CHarrnMAN. Yes. What has that to do with the matters under
discussion ?
Mr. Cuark. IJ think that it has much to do with this telegram that
you speak of. Now, that was
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Well, was that to notify Congress
that there should not be a closed season ?
Mr. Cirarxk. It was a resolution in Congress asking for a close
season of land sealing for 15 years, the full life of the treaty; and
that resolution if it had been*carried through, would have nullified
the treaty; it would have caused the abrogation of the treaty.
The CHAIRMAN. But do you not know it to be a fact—and Dr.
Jordan knew it to be a fact—that the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions had already recommended a closed season of only 2 years
when the telegram came? Now what is the use of bringing that in?
Mr. CLarK. It would make no difference what the source was.
I want to point out to you Dr. Jordan’s frame of mind at the time.
The CuarrmMan. Yes—when that Committee had already recom-
mended only two years, and you thought that others didit. I thought
it ought to be done.
Mr. McGuire. Was that the committee which had taken action,
or had Congress already taken action on the committee’s report?
The CHarRMAN. It was up in the House for adoption.
Mr. McGuire. But did you say that Congress had or had not -
taken action on that committee’s report ?
The CuarrMAn. No; I say it was reported by the committee, and
when the matter was under discussion, I think the telegram was
handed around, and I believe was read by Mr. Sulzer, so there is
no use trying to get back to my resolution. When my resolution
was introduced, the Committee on Foreign Relations had taken up
the subject, and that was the situation when I introduced my resolu-
tion.
Mr. Ciarx. I wanted to explain further Dr. Jordan’s position.
Any act to cut off the land sealing for 15 years would have been a
repudiation of our obligations under that treaty. There could be
only one class of people interested or benefited by that act, and
that was the pelagic sealers. If the abrogation of that treaty was
caused through our failure to meet its obligations, pelagic sealing
would have been immediately resumed.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 563
The CHarrRMAN. Yes.
Mr. Ciarx. And this herd would be going down grade now.
The CuarrMan. Yes. I am not going to get into any dispute with
you about matters of immateriality. The question here is simply
whether Dr. Jordan sent such a telegram, and now you say you
know all about Dr. Jordan’s frame of mind when he sent the tele-
gram, but awhile ago you said you did not know whether you ever
talked with him upon the subject.
Mr. CrarK. About sending it?
The CuarrMan. About sending those telegrams.
Mr. CLark. But your specific question was, whether I discussed
with Dr. Jordan the question whether Mr. Elliott was at the head
of the fur-seal lobby.
The CuarrMANn. I asked you whether you discussed that subject
with Dr. Jordan, and you said you did not think you did.
Mr. CrarK. I am not now saying that I discussed that subject
with Dr. Jordan, but I am trying to explain to you the point of
view
Mr. BRUCKNER (interposing). Did you discuss it with him ?
Mr. CrarK. No, If did not. J am trying to explain the point of
view
Mr. BrucKNeER. But did you discuss it with him?
Mr. CrarK.- No, I did not. I am explaining Dr. Jordan’s point
of view which was my own. { could not understand that resolution
or the action of the House and Senate in making a 10-year closed sea-
son, unless there was some influence working for pelagic sealing back
of it.
The Coarrman. That would cause a man to send a falsehood to
Congress, would it not ?
Mr. Ciarxk. Well, if it has been denied, I have not seen it.
Mr. McGuire. I would like to have Mr. Clark go ahead with the
eee rent of Senator Burnham—the Senator’s repudiation of the
rank.
Mr. Crarx. Last April, in conversation with Secretary Redfield, —
it developed that he, too, had had letters from Amos Allen, and he
became interested.
Mr. McGuire. Secretary Redfield has received letters, too, from
Amos Allen ?
Mr. Crark. Yes; and he became interested in my letters from
Amos Allen, and he asked the privilege of taking all these documents
that I had and using them for a time, and I put them in order and
turned them over to him. That is the end of my knowledge regard-
ing them. They are supposed to be in the hands of Secretary Red-
field. J told him that he might keep them until he was through
with them, but that then I wished them returned ultimately, be-
cause two of the letters were from the university files.
Mr. McGuire. I want to ask you whether the Secretary asked you
for those letters while the question of the confirmation of the present
head of the Fisheries Bureau was up in the Senate?
Mr. Ciark. As J recall it, the nomination was under consideration ;
and I remember that the confirmation was made, or notification of
it came to me, in the Minneapolis papers on my way to California,
so that it must have been while that matter was under consideration.
564 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether Mr. Elhott was fighting that
confirmation ¢
Mr. Crarx. I understood, indirectly, that he was; but I have no
very positive information about it.
Mr. McGuire. Now, you say that Senator Burnham said that no
one had authority to use.a franking privilege with his frankable
envelopes ?
Mr. Crarx. That was the purport of his telegram.
Mr. McGuire. And that the matter franked to you in writing was
in the handwriting of Mr. Henry W. Elliott ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir. ;
Mr. McGuire. In the envelope of Senator Burnham ?
Mr. CLarx. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And franked ?
Mr. Cuark. Franked, yes. The envelope, of course, and the
document in it.
Mr. McGurrE (interposing). Yes; and those documents are now
in the hands of Secretary Redfield ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Do you regard branding as a feasible method of
marking ?
Mr. Crarx. I do.
Mr. McGurre. You said something about 1,060 dead pups which
you found in 1912. How do you know that the 1,060 dead pups you
found in 1912 and the 1,465 that you found in 1913 were for the most
part trampled? I think you said they were trampled.
Mr. Bruckner. Pardon me; may I ask a question there?
Mr. McGuire. Certainly.
Mr. Bruckner. Is the hide or skin of a dead pup as good as the hide
or skin of a seal that was slaughtered ?
Mr. Crark. No; it is not. The pup is born with a black coat of
hair only, and it sheds that coat after about two months. The fur
starts later and the pup grows a new coat of silver-gray hair, which
is the permanent winter coat.
Mr. Bruckner. That is what I wanted to know.
Mr. McGurre. Now, you can answer my question.
Mr. CLarKk. Well, in 1912 Mr. M. C. Marsh was chief naturalist on
the fur seal islands. He and I were specially charged with investiga-
tion of mortality among the pups. There has been a good deal of
difference of opinion regarding the causes of natural mortality. In
1896 we found 11,000 dead pups on the rookeries, and we found in 1897
that one of the large contributing causes was the hookworm, which
was assigned as the chief cause of the death of pups on sandy areas.
In 1896 we had thought trampling by fighting bulls was the impor-
tant cause, because in that year there was a tremendous amount of
fighting, and we did not know or did not get at the subject early
enough to determine about the worm. In 1912 we were required to
find whether the worm was still in existence or not, and then determine
what were the other causes, in so far as it was possible. As the herd
was then small, we were able to get down to facts. We discovered
immediately a new cause of death operating among the pups—I mean
new to us. It was that many of the pups were smothered at the
instant of birth. We determined that by the fact that the large
intestine was full of prenatal fetal matter, and the lungs, not having
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 565
had air in them were heavy and would sink in water. Those were
the two factors by which we determined. We could get these indi-
cations even from the rotten pups.
So we went over the rookeries with those facts in view, and found
that smothering at birth was a large cause of death, due simply to the
ordinary crowding of the animals on the rookery. The mother seal
pays little attention, compared with ordinary animals, to the birth
of her pup. Another cow might lie upon its head, and it might never
establish breathing.
That impressed upon Mr. Marsh and myself the undesirability of
any increase of confusion on the rookeries. As an outgrowth of this
information comes my energetic protest against this law, which, if car-
ried out, will put 95,600 bulls on those rookeries, where not more than
10,000 can be used. The result of the fighting of the bulls with one
another will cause incalculabie loss in pups on the rookeries.
Mr. SrepHens. In order to avoid that, Mr. Clark, I understand that
you desire that the yearlings be killed ?
Mr. CrarKk. Not the yearlings. I! desire that the 3-year-old males
be killed, so as to leave just half as many 3-year-olds each year as
there were active bulls the preceding year. All the other 3-year-olds .
should be killed.
Mr. StErHENS. When is a seal of full age?
Mr. Crarx. The female bears her first pup at 3 years old. The
male, of course, does not develop his full strength until he is 7 or 8
years old.
Mr. Bruckner. Has he the same weight at 3 years as at 7 or 8?
Mr. CrarK. Not at all; his weight is only 75 or 80 to 90 pounds at
3 years, but at the age of 7 he weighs 400 to 500 pounds.
Mr. BRUCKNER. Yes.
The CuarrmMan. Mr. McGuire, have you finished with your ques-
tions ?
Mr. McGuire. No; I have a number more; I[ can not tell how long
it will take. I am trying to avoid a reiteration, and at the same time
trying to develop some of these important facts.
(Thereupon, at 3.55 p. m., the committee adjourned until to-mor-
row, Tuesday, February 24, 1914, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Tuesday, February 24, 1914.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel
(chairman) presiding.
The CuarrmMan. Before we proceed with the examination, Mr.
McGuire, I want to call attention to a fact which seems to me was
misunderstood yesterday. If you will open the hearing No. 1 at
page 416 you will remember that we had trouble with that date of
July 25, 1897. It looked as if Jordan was quoted as saying, “‘In
1897,” but if you turn back to page 415 the date is 1896. “Jordan
denies seeing any yearling seals on the hauling grounds up to July 25,
1896.” This 1896 evidently is a mistake of the printer. It is cor-
rectly stated on the page following. It is 1896 instead of 1897. I
566 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
just wanted to call the committee’s attention to that, because there
is a discrepancy there which seems to be apparent.
Mr. McGuire. I do not know about that. Let me see it. Whose
statement is that ?
Mr. Exriiorr. Mine. Then I quote him, and then on the next page
I quote him again.
Mr. McGutre. What do those stars indicate ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I leave out the rest of it and come down to the
yearlings. I do not want to deceive the committee.
Mr. McGuire. That is all about that, unless Mr. Clark has some-
thing to say about it.
Mr. CrarK. I do; certainly I shall have something to say about it.
The CHarrMANn. Now, turn to hearing No. 12, pages 771, 772, 763,
and 764. On page 763 there is a letter dated November 3, 1909,
Lakewood, Ohio, addressed to Dr. David Starr Jordan, Stanford
University, California, from Henry W. Elliott. On page 764 there is
an answer written dated November 6, 1909.
Mr. Extiotr. No; my letter is the answer to Jordan’s. The first
letter is on page 764, dated November 6.
The CuarrMan. That is to you.
Mr. Exziorr. That is to me and my answer follows on page 763.
Mr. CiarKk. That letter is dated November 3.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; that is a printer’s misprint. It should be
November 13. That isin answer to Dr. Jordan’s letter.
The CHarrMANn. I have extracts here which I desire to read to the
ERS and then, if it is necessary to go into the whole letter we will
0 sO.
TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE A. CLARK—Continued.
Mr. SreruEens. What is the first letter?
The CHAarRMAN. November 6, 1909, page 764, Jordan to Hlliott.
(Reading) :
LELAND STANDFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
Stanford University, Cal., November 6, 1909.
Mr. Henry Woop E.uiort,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dear Sir: I have received from the Bureau of Fisheries a letter from you to Secre-
tary Nagel, concerning the authorship of a chart which was inserted in my preliminary
report on the fur seals in 1896.
Now, the last paragraph is as follows:
I take this opportunity to express the hope that you may approve of the effort t©
establish a modus vivendi for a time, without killing on land or sea, until the matte?
of pelagic sealing can be finally settled. To lease these islands again as things are
would be a farce. I see some hope that an energetic discussion with Japan would be
successful and the Victoria people are anxious to realize on their rights.
Very truly, yours,
Davin STARR JORDAN.
Now, Mr. Clark, did you assist Dr. Jordan in preparing and writing
this letter ?
Mr. Ciark. In the second paragraph it seems to indicate that,
because I am said to have refreshed his memory about the existence
of a chart which was under discussion also. I presume that I helped
him to write the letter.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 567
The CHarrMAN. Now, then, the answer of Henry W. Elliott is
dated No. 17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio, November 3.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is on the page preceding. It is a printer’s
error.
The CuarrMan. It should be November 13. It is found at 763
of hearings No. 12, Sixty-second Congress, and reads as follows:
Dr. Davin STarRR JORDAN,
Stanford University, Cal.
Dear Str: 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 statement of
fact may help you to know its publication there without that credit given to me as its
author which is indisputably mine.
Now, the last paragraph of the letter is as follows:
With regard to the suspension of all killing on the islands and in the sea for an indefi-
nite number of years, 1 am doing all I can to bring it about, as you suggest; but all
private interests must be at once and entirely eliminated from both sides, and any
future killing at sea prohibited forever.
With regard to the ‘‘rights’”’ ot 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 expense of humanity and decency. Let their vessels rot, and
let their owners rot with them.
Very truly yours,
Henry W. ELuiorr.
Do you know whether Dr. Jordan received this letter ?
Mr. CrarKx. In all probability he did.
The CoarrMAN. Then on February 5, 1912, pages 771 and 772,
at the foot of page 771 appears the following telegram alleged to have
been sent by David Starr Jordan to Hon. William Sulzer, House of
Representatives, Washington, D. C., and reads as follows:
Pato Auto, Cau., February 5, 1912.
Hon. WM. SuLzER,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
To incorporate a clause estabiishing 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. Elbott.
Davip Starr JORDAN.
aoe you know anything of the sending of that telegram to Mr.
er ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes; as I said yesterday, I recognized this telegram
was sent by Dr. Jordan.
The CuHarrman. Now, after this telegram was received—there are
some copies of it here, Mr. McGuire, which I have had made, and I
punctuated it because the man who received it did not punctuate it.
It is dated February 14, but the year is not given; it was received
about six days after the Sulzer telegram was received in the House
Mr. StePHENS. That is in hearing No. 12?
The CuarrmMan. Yes. After the Sulzer telegram was exhibited in
the House by Mr. Sulzer, and, I think, read by the clerk, because _
some member. asked to have it read, I thought that as chairman of
this committee I would send Dr. Jordan a letter and ask him for the
sources of his information about Elliott having a pelagic sealer’s
lobby, and the next morning in a telegram I quoted the Sulzer tele-
gram which had been exhibited in the House and stated to Dr.
568 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Jordan that the committee here would be very much interested in the
sources of his information and the truth of the information that
Elliott was at the head of the pelagic sealers’ lobby, or that it would
be a good thing for this committee as well as for the House of Repre-
sentatives if he would give us the sources of his information. That
is the effect of the telegram I wrote at the hotel. J did not make a
copy of it that I know of.
Mr. StepHens. You have no copy of it now?
The Cuarrman. No; I just stated the substance of it. Then I
received this reply:
Pato Ato, Ca, Feb. 14.
Hon. Jno. H. RoTHERMEL,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Pelagic sealing interest only one favored by proposed prohibition of land killing.
No question as to this lobby and its leadership, but no direct evidence that anybody
received pay for this work. Twenty years of active lobbying against legitimate
interest of fur-seal herd and directly favoring pelagic sealers is legitimate ground for
interference.
Davin STARR JORDAN.
Now, he says “‘interference,” but he no doubt means ‘‘inference.”’
Do you know of that telegram having been sent by Dr. Jordan?
Mr. Crarx. I do not recall the wording of this telegram very well,
but I know that Dr. Jordan answered your telegram, and this is prob-
ably the answer.
The CuarrmMan. Would there be any objection on the part of the
witness to putting that in the hearings just as it is punctuated ?
Mr. McGuire. [ have no objection.
The Cuarrman. Because this would not look right. It surely was
the mistake of the sender or of the receiver. There is no question
about it.
Mr. Ciarx. I see no reason why the telegram might not be entered
in the record as it was received, with the explanations.
Mr. McGurre. Let the stenographer put both copies of the tele-
gram in the record.
The CuarrMAn. All right.
(The unpunctuated telegram is as follows:)
130 w my 67 collect gr
Hon Jno H RorHeEermMeEt, H of R
Washn DC
Pelagic sealing interest only one favored by proposed prohibition of land killing no
question as to this lobby and its leadership but no direct evidence that anybody
received pay for this work twenty years of active lobbying against legitimate interest
of fur seal herd and directly favoring pelagic sealers is legitimate ground for interference
Davip Starr JORDAN.
331p-
Mr. McGurre. Is there anything you want to say with regard to
these last observations of the chairman as to pages 762, 763, and 771 ?
Mr. CLarxk. I am somewhat at a loss to know just what the chair-
man wanted me to do with regard to these two letters. They were
undoubtedly letters which were passed and received. I bo not
question that.
The CoarrMan. I simply asked you whether you knew of it or
assisted in preparing or sending the correspondence.
Mr. Ciarx. I would like, of course, to discuss this matter of the
chart, if you like.
PaLoaLtto CaL Feb 14
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 569
Mr. McoGurre. All right; you may proceed.
Mr. Crarx. There was made in the House of Representatives, on
the basis of this letter, by Congressman Kendall, of Iowa, the charge
of deliberate plagiarism aginst Dr. Jordan, and it was amplified into
a speech on the basis of these letters. It arose over a chart which Mr.
Elhott claimed that Dr. Jordan had incorporated in his 1897 report
without giving Mr. Elhott credit. When we submitted our 1896
report to Assistant Secretary Charles $8. Hamlin, he suggested that
we ought to have a map in the report giving some idea of the move-
ment of the seals. Dr. Jordan objected somewhat as we bad not yet
got our dataready. Dr. Charles H. Townsend, was preparing a map
in which he was platting from the records of the pelagic sealers’ logs
catches including about 120,000 animals, which was to give the exact
location of the animals in their winter migrations. This could not be
got ready for this 1896 report and Dr. Jordan thought it was useless to
put in a chart showmg the position of the animals in November, De-
cember, and so on, when we did not know anything about it. Mr.
Hamin said that he could get up such achart very quickly from data in
the department. Dr. Jordan acquiesced and left the making of the
chart and its printing to Mr. Hamlin. We did notsee that chart until
the report was printed. No question was raised about that chart until
November, 1909, when Mr. Hornaday, of New York, made a com-
plaint to Dr. Jordan because he had been criticised for usmg what he
supposed was Dr. Jordan’s chart in a natural history book of his. He
wrote to Dr. Jordan. Then followed the correspondence with Mr.
Elhott. Dr. Jordan expressed his regrets if he had allowed inad-
vertently to appear in his report without credit a chart, the author-
ship of which belied to some one else. He had, however, to refer
the matter to Mr. Hamlin. Dr. Jordan wrote to the Secretary of the
Treasury and was informed that we were under no obligations to Mr.
Elliott for this map, and he said we were not. That should have
ended the matter, but the chart matter was brought up in the House
of Representatives and Dr. Jordan was charged with plagiarism.
The CuHairman. You only want to convey the idea that you do not
want to deny the authorship of anybody else but you got it from the
Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Cirarx. But Dr. Jordan was charged with plagiarism just the
same.
Mr. McGuire. Then on your statement of fact, Dr. Jordan was not
guilty of plagiarism ?
Mr. Crarx. Not at all.
Mr. McGuire. Who is Mr. Hamlin?
Mr. Crarx. He was the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the
man who appointed Dr. Jordan for the commission of 1896 and 1897;
he was the Assistant Secretary in the fur-seal matter at that time.
Mr. McGuire. And he wrote to Dr. Jordan that Mr. Elhott was
not entitled to credit for the maps? .
Mr. CLrarx. He assured Dr. Jordan that we were under no obliga-
tion to Mr. Ethott for the chart; that it was compiled from records
which were the property of the Treasury Department by their own
draftsmen.
Mr. McGuire. That would, anyhow, amount to a contention be-
tween individuals which had nothing to do with the treatment of
the seal or the governing of the seal islands. Is that a fact?
570 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crarx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Now, in hearing No. 1 before this committee, Janu-
ary, 1914, page 415, with respect to the matter called to your atten-
tion by the chairman, have you any observations to make, Mr. Clark?
Mr. Crarxk. I was not aware, until the chairman called attention
to it, of this statement on page 415. That is, I have not examined
every item of this big document. Going back to the record, on page
416, the question is not simply whether a typographical error has
occurred. On the basis of that typographical error is a deduction
which is entirely wrong. It places a statement of Dr. Jordan made
one year in contradiction with four statements made by two other
men one year later. There is the issue. If Dr. Jordan made this
statement on July 25, 1897, after two seasons’ experience, it would
have been a foolish statement; but if the date is in 1896, after he had
been on the islands for about two weeks, it is a natural one.
The CuatirMAN. But, Mr. Clark, it is explained in the hearing that
it is a discrepancy, and that Dr. Jordan is no longer charged with
having been there in 1897.
Mr. Crark. Has this ‘‘deadly parallel’? depending on the error
also been corrected ?
The CHarrmMan. No. You see the same thing in both quotations.
You will find the same thing in both quotations. The only unfortu-
nate part of it was that 1897 was printed on page 416, but the hearings
will explain that.
Mr. CLrark. Do you mean to say that if that date is corrected to
1896, that that statement is a just one—a year apart?
The CuarrmMan. As I understand it; that is my impression.
Mr. McGurre. But here he has drawn a deadly parallel, and if this
change is made it absolutely knocks the parallel sky west of crooked.
Mr. Exxrorr. The same parallel is drawn on the page preceding,
and then in 1898 Dr. Jordan confirms all his errors.
The CHarrMAN. I suppose that is true; suppose you examine it
and see whether that is true.
Mr. Crark. The parallel on page 416 is different. The same state-
ment for Dr. Jordan is made in the parallel claimed on the other
side, which is for July 11, and no year is given. (Reading):
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 interference, they play among themselves like little dogs, * * *
Similar comparisons might be made for the 2-year-olds, which are bigger than the
yearlings.
The year is not given there, so that you can not make a parallel out
of that.
Mr. SrePHENS. On the next page you will find the parallel, page
416, right-hand column, fur-seal investigation of 1898.
Mr. Ciarx. That will fix the date, of course, but 1898 is the date
of publication, not of observation.
Mr. Exxrorr. On page 341 I have got it all fixed.
Mr. Crarx. I was mislead into thinking it stopped at the bottom.
Mr. Exxiorr. I have been pretty careful. I was trying to explain
that column, Mr. McGuire, and you would not let me.
The CoarrmMan. Your explanation is in the hearings. Now let
Mr. Clark explain his version of it, and see whether there is any mis-
take about it.
— wf
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 57]
Mr. Crark. Itis alittle hard to findit. That matter is immaterial,
because all I want to get at is this: Here on page 416 1s a “deadly
parallel” of contradiction drawn between two classes of people, and
it is based upon an error. If you admit that it is a typographical
error, it destroys the whole purpose of the parallel. That is the
only issue I raise. If you change that date to 1896 it simply knocks
out your parallel. J want to be sure that the fact is corrected, and
that it is understood we are not in contradiction.
The CHarRMAN. But look at it in this way: Now that it is explained
that it means 1896, it is no parallel, because the facts are not similar.
Mr. CrarxK. Yes, sir; that is what I wanted to get. That is all
I want.
The CHarrMAN. But it was unintentional on the part of Mr.
Elliott that that got in there.
Mr. McGuire. That might be, but it was sufficient for him to
base a deadly parallel on.
Mr. Exriotr. It was not intentional.
Mr. CrarKk. It is unfortunate that these charges are based on
mistakes of this kind.
Mr. Extiorr. It is no mistake there. My statement is correct. I
told him so. I made no mistake. I object to that, Mr. Chairman,
The CuarrMan. Now, we will drop the matter at this point.
Mr. Extiorr. I made no mistake. I will take that up in my state-
ment later.
The CHarrMan. You will have a right to explain it.
Mr. Exxiorr, Yes; I certainly have. You will find I am not
mistaken.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Clark, the chairman asked you about a letter
you wrote to Dr. Hornaday, and there was something said at the time
that you wanted to explain further. I wish you would give the facts
in connection with that letter and the letters that he wrote.
Mr. Crarx. The chairman raised a question regarding a letter which
I had written to Dr. Hornaday, of New York. It was part of a per-~
sonal correspondence between myself and Dr. Hornaday, and I am
sorry that my letter was submitted to the chairman of this committee.
The letters of Dr. Hornaday were not submitted to the chairman of
this committee. On page 250 of hearing No. 6, before this committee,
there appeared a letter addressed to Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary
of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C., dated Bedford Park,
July 27, 1911. It is signed by W. T. Hornaday and approved and
signed by Julius H. Seymour, A. S. Houghton, Charles D. Cleveland,
Manhall McLean, George William Burleigh, and William B. Greeley,
These gentlemen who signed with Dr. Hornaday are said to be mem-
bers of the Campfire Club of America. This hearing was sent to me
with the letter marked in red ink. I want to read these passages
from it.
In the second paragraph from the top of page 251 are these words:
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.
Then follows irrelevant matter referring to Mr. Lembkey. The paras
graph following is:
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
579 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
have been by a powerful fleet of pelagic sealers, have not decreased more than 10 per
cent since December, 1903?
Then there is another reference to Mr. Lembkey and the London
sales. The paragraph concludes:
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 animal 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 num-
er living? I claim that it was.
The correspondence with Dr. Hornaday arose from that statement,
that charge against me of deliberate falsehood and attempt to deceive
the Secretary. This letter and charge has been given honorable
publication by your committee and is reproduced in this document
and to my knowledge three or four other times in these hearings.
Mr. McGurre. This same statement ?
Mr. Crarx. This same statement. It appears in this final hearmg
at page 232.
Mr. McGuire. You were an official representative of the Govern-
ment at that time ?
_ Mr. Crarx. I was a duly accredited special investigator for the
Bureau of Fisheries, and the commissioner’s appointment was
approved by Secretary Nagel.
Mr. MoGurre. And you were the party responsible entirely for the
report made to the department from the islands ?
Mr. CrarKk. I was.
Mr. McGuire. With respect to the number and condition of the
Seals ?
Mr. Ciarx. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. You may state whether subsequent counts and
observations confirmed the number in your report at that time to
Secretary Nagel, and whether you were right at that time.
Mr. CrarK. I claim that the report of the special agents of this
committee which states that in 1913 there was 190,950 seals on the
Pribilof Islands vindicates my contention that there were 158,000—
this statement of 140,000 is in error—in 1909.
Mr. McGuire. And that proves absolutely and conclusively that
Dr. Hornaday was wrong in his statement to the Secretary and his
accusations to you? Is that right ?
Mr. Cuark. | think it does.
Mr. McGurre. Now, what right had he to interfere ?
Mr. Crarx. I know of none whatever.
Mr. McGutre. Was he an official of the Government ?
Mr. Crark. Not to my knowledge. |
Mr. McGutre. Had he been to your knowledge?
Mr. CrarKx. No, sir. -
Mr. McGuire. Do you know of any reason why he should interfere,
Save and except that he belonged to what they call the Campfire Club
of America ?
Mr. Ciarx. I know of no other reason.
Mr. McGuire. Now, when you say that even the representatives
of this committee in their report set forth and approved your state-
ment with respect to the number of seals in 1909, I will ask you
whether or not your count of 1913 is not something like 75,000 to
80,000 more than that of the representatives of the committee ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 5732
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir; 268,305 as against 190,950.
Mr. McGuire. And that would further tend to prove that you
were accurate; that fis, that your figures were not too low in your
report to Secretary Nagel ?
Mr. Crarx. It proves that my figures for 1909 were an under-
estimate rather than an overestimate.
Mr. STepHENS. What was your estimate for 1909?
Mr. Ciarx. 158,000.
Mr. McGuire. So that it is absolutely proven here and now that
you were right and Dr. Hornaday was wrong.
Mr. CrarK. [ think so.
Mr. McGuire. By the official records and by all the representatives
of the Government ?
Mr. CLark. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You stated yesterday that there was another
observation you wanted to make with respect to the charges against
Dr. Jordan, and you were interrupted. Now, will you finish that
statement ?
Mr. Ciark. I was referring to this specific charge of falsification
of Russian records against Dr. Jordan, made at pages 185, 258, and
411. I was able to answer the charge with regard to Yanovsky by
reading a reference given by Mr. Eliott, and proving that that trans-
lation supported Dr. Jordan.
Now, there is just one other statement that I wanted to call atten-
tion to, and was diverted from at the time. 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 Veniaminof, originally published in St. Petersburg in 1839,
The translation was made for Dr. Jordan to be placed in his report.
Mr. Elliott quotes a paragraph that begins: ‘‘The taking of fur the
seals commenced in the latter days of September,” and ends, ‘the
latter are driven cautiously back to the beach.”’ I am not interested
in the full quotation, but toward the end of it there is inserted a,
series of stars, showing an omission. This quotation is made with a
view to showing that Dr. Jordan falsified when he declared that the
Russians killed the fur seals, males and females. This omitted sen-
tence is very important and I want to read it.
Mr. McGuire. You mean that which is omitted in Elliott’s quota-
tion.
Mr. Crark. He omitted this sentence:
The quite young seals; that is to say, those only 4 months of age, are killed
without exception.
Mr. McGurre. You mean to say that is omitted from Elliott’s
statement ?
Mr. Crark. It is omitted from this quotation by Mr. Elliott and
the quotation is repeated three times in this document before you.
Mr. McGuire. Suppose you inserted that statement; what effect
would it have on his statement ?
Mr. Criark. It absolutely disproves Mr. Elhott’s contention and
proves that Dr. Jordan was right when he said that the Russians
killed the fur seals, male and female alike.
Mr. McGuire. Could that have been omitted without having been,
willfully omitted ?
574 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Crark. I say not, because the stars are here. If there were
no stars | would say that it might be unintentional.
Mr. Exxiort. It is sensibly omitted, and for good reasons.
The CHarrMANn. You will have a chance to explain.
Mr. McGuire. Now, were you through with regard to that charge
against Dr. Jordan ?
Mr. Crark. Yes; I think that disposes of that matter.
Mr. McGuire. Were you a witness before this committee in 1909
in connection with that investigation made at that time?
Mr. CuarK. No, sir; I was not.
Mr. McGuire. You made a report in 1909?
Mr. CrarK. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. To the Department of Commerce and Labor, as it
was at that time?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Was there anything you wanted to say with respect
to that report more than what you have said ?
Mr. Cuarx. I should like the opportunity to mention some things
that have been done to it in this last document prepared for this com-
mittee. At page 104 of hearing No. 1—I wish you would return to it—
is a record labeled, ‘‘Report on condition of fur-seal herd, 1909,”
addressed to Hon. George M. Bowers, Commissioner of Fisheries,
Washington, D. C., starting out with, “Dear Sir, I have the honor
‘to submit,” and winding up with, “ Respectfully submitted, George
Archibald Clark, assistant in charge of fur-seal investigation, Stan-
ford University, September 30, 1909.” That looks like a complete
report.
Mir. McGuire. Well, was that your complete report ?
Mr. CrarK. It was not my complete report. My complete report
is this document of 69 pages of text and field notes and tables.
When I examined this report I found that it contained material from
page 866 only. It starts in the middle of a paragraph but does not
complete the paragraph, and there is an omission at the end of the
first paragraph, and another at the end of the second, and these omis-
sions entirely change the sense of what I said.
The CoarrMan. Now, Mr. Clark, I see there is a reference here to
Appendix A, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of
Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911, pages 824 and 866. That has
reference, no doubt, to your full report, has 1t not ?
Mr. Cuarx. It certainly does; that reference does.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is what I meant.
Mr. Crarx. Why was not indication of omissions in that condensed
report made? Will people go back to see that reference? Will they
not take it as it stands and read it and be influenced by it?
The CHarrMAN. The committee will do that.
Mr. McGuire. Is there any indication anywhere in this seemingly
full report of yours of any omissions ?
Mr. Crarx. None whatever.
Mr. McGuire. Upon the face of it you may state whether it would
mislead the casual reader as to your report of 60 some pages, reduced
to less than one page, or about a half of a page, seemingly your state-
ment to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor?
Mr. Crark. It deceived me fora moment. That is, I thought that
it might be a preliminary statement.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 575
Mr. McGuire. It deceived me, too. Do you find anything there
in the body of Mr. Elhott’s statement where he has cut and covered,
taking part of one page and part of another, that would indicate that
he had omitted from various pages, in fact, had taken and grouped
short extracts as he felt like doing? Is there anything to indicate it
in the body of the report ?
Mr. CLarKk. On page 189—I wish you would particularly glance at
this with me. At the bottom of that page is a statement:
George A. Clark, sent up in 1909 by Secretary Charles Nagel, and at Dr. Jordan’s
urgent request, to make an investigation into the condition of the herd, after the
effect of thirteen years’ killing by the lessees as licensed in 1896, by Dr. Jordan——
that is a slander against Dr. Jordan
Mr. McGurrr. Is that true? 7
Mr. Crarx. That is not true. [Continuing reading:]
by Dr. Jordan, has this to say, as against the above, anent the interests of the
lessees. (Report, 1909, Appendix A, p. 894.)
Then follow extracts. I spent a full hour trying to see what had
been done with these extracts out of my own report. The first para-
graph is from page 854, as the reference states. The second para-
eraph is from page 866. ‘There is a break there and then follows more
from page 866, and it is from the bottom of the page. Then follows
on the next page a section of a paragraph from the top of page 866,
transposing the two pieces.. The matter winds up with two para-
graphs from pages 850 and 851. Those paragraphs are so thrown
together that they make a showing entirely different from what I
wanted to make in my report, and in the context is omitted all qualify-
ing phrases and explanations necessary to understand what I reported.
Mr. McGuire. Then this is not your report and it does not convey
the meaning that your full report did?
Mr. Crark. It certainly does not.
Mr. McGurre. And there is no statement here that would give the
reader fairly and honestly an opportunity to understand what had
been done.
Mr. Ciarx. No, but in this statement I will say there are indica-
tions of omissions.
The CuarrMAn. Well, the committee will work that out.
Mr. McGutre. I know, but I want to get it on the record. These
are occurring too often. At pages 104 and 105 there appears what
seems to be a special brief of your 1909 report.
Mr. Crarx. | think we have covered that.
Mr. McGurre. Thatisright. There is one other matter, Mr. Clark,
that I wanted to call attention to, and I made a note of it but I have
mislaid my notes, but it was regarding the sending out of matter, part
of which was franked under the franks of various Members. Did you
mention it yesterday? I can not find my notes, but will you state
whether you have mentioned all the instances where such documents
were sent out under this fictitious name? What was that name?
I can not recall it.
Mr. Exxtiotr. Davy Jones.
Mr. Crarx. I was speaking yesterday of the Amos Allen corre-
spondence and, as I indicated then, the documents are in the hands
of Secretary Redfield. But I have received certain things since I
came home from the North this fall, and I have them here. I should
like to refer to them in that connection, and particularly this one
576 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
which is entitled, ‘‘The deadly parallel on a trained naturalist.” On
one side is this legend: “Dr. Jordan declares there are no breeding
bulls on the rookeries under 8 years of age,’’ and on the other side,
‘“But bis own man Clark denies him, and confirms Elliott.” That is
in a disguised or printed hand, and is underscored in red. i
Mr. Extiotr. I gave that to Mr. Hatton on the island last summer
to study it up. .
Mr. Crarxk. And on the bottom, in Mr. Elliott’s handwriting, is:
It is the 6 and 7-vear-old males flushed and ambitious with a sense of their repro-
ductive ability that swarm out and do battle with the older ones on these places.
(Elliott monograph on Seal Islands, Bulletin 176, U.S. Fish Commission, 1882, p. 107.)
I call attention to the fact that to produce that deadly parallel
this volume of 1200 pages had to be mutilated and four pages cut
out of it.
Mr. McGuire. What volume is that?
Mr. CLrark. Appendix A to this committee’s report.
The CHarrMan. First of all, Mr. Clark, did you receive that
through the mails ?
Mr. CrarKk. It was received through the mails, not by myself but
by the president of Stanford University, addressed to the president
of Stanford University.
The Cuarrman. Under a frank ?
Mr. CrarKx. No, sir.
Mr. McGurre. You say in order to produce that, there had to be
four pages cut out of the hearings before this committee ?
Mr. CrarK. I have just been talking to you about the condensa-
tion and mutilation of my 1909 report. Now, this purports to be
my 1909 report in just the same way. It is headed, ‘‘ Report on
condition of fur-seal herd, 1909.” It takes a paragraph from the
text of my report, then one from my field notes, and finally last words
of my report, ‘Respectfully submitted, George Archibald Clark,
Assistant, etc.’ In other words, in order to produce that “deadly
parallel” a copy of Appendix A had to be cut in four places. The
president of Stanford University has received a second parallel
which required another cutting of that Government document, and
it was numbered 98. It suggests that 98 copies may have been cut
and mailed.
Mr. McGuire. In other words, the records had to be mutilated in
order to make that showing ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know in whose handrwriting that is?
Mr. Crarxk. That is in the handwriting of Henry W. Elliott.
Mr. McGurre. And whoever produced that, whether it was Henry
W. Elliott or not, had to and did mutilate the record in order to make
this showing.
Mr. Crark. Yes; cut this book.
I wish to call attention to a few more of these in passing. In this
one ( indicating) the reference is made to Dr. Leonhard Stejneger,
the honored head Curator of the United States Museum. After mak-
ing a quotation from the testimony before this committee, which
necessitated the cutting of some hearing, I do not know which, but
at the head is—
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, House of
Representatives, Saturday, May 4, 1912. The committee met at 10 o’clock a.m,
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 577
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding. Present: Messrs. Young, McGilli-
cuddy, and McGuire. Statement of Leonhard Stejneger.
Then there is a legend and a little cartoon
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Had you not better explain where
you received that ?
Mr. CrarKk. I would like to read this note.
-The Coarrman. And then explain it. It is always in order to
- make an explanation. ;
Mr. Crark. There is a picture of a lady with a cane and hat, and
in front of the picture, in the writing of Mr. Elliott, is the following:
Here is your hat, Dr. Stejneger, the tobaggan is waiting outside with Dr. Jordan
and the whole advisory board, sir.
The CuarrMAn. Well, there is not much harm in that.
Mr. CrarKk. No; not much. Here are two more deadly parallels,
and I should like to ask the chairman of this committee to ask Mr.
Henry W. Elliott why these things were mailed to the president of
Stanford University. He would like to know.
Mr. McGurre. I will ask him.
The CHarrMAn. Shall I do it when Mr. Elliott goes on the stand ?
Mr. McGurre. Either you or I, when he goes on the stand.
Mr. Exxiotr. Alright.
The CHarrMan. Mr. Clark, let me ask you this: Did you receive
this last part that you submitted under a frank ?
Mr. CrarKk. No; none of that was under a frank.
Mr. McGurre. You may state whether these documents which
various persons have been receiving recently were received in envelope
stamped or whether they are proceeding more cautiously than they
were.
Mr. Crarxk. They are all stamped this year. I might say that
these documents (Hearing 1, 1914) with a red ink notation have
been received under your frank, Mr. Rothermel, by President Bran-
ner, by the professor of zoology, by the professor of germanic phil-
ology, and by the president of the board of trustees of Stanford
University. ‘
The CuarrMan. The information I sent to them was on account
of this document.
Mr. Crarx.-The thing that struck us was the red ink marks, either
reflecting discredit on Dr. Jordan or credit on Mr. Elliott.
The CuarrMan. I told the clerk to send them over.
Mr. Patron. Did you tell him to mark them ?
The CoarrMan. No.
Mr. Exxiorr. It was marked in pencil.
Mr. Crark. Inredink. This is one of them. This happens to be
a statement in which Mr. Redfield before this committee thanked
Mr. Elliott for the light he had thrown on the subject of the fur seals.
The CHairman. Well, that must have happened, as I told Mr.
Baker to see that they were sent out, and I did it so that the people
could answer as soon as possible. I think it was on the same day
when the records were submitted to the committee.
Mr. CrarK. Yes; I received those other documents carefully
marked A, B, and C, but this is different; this came addressed to the
President of Stanford University, in Mr. Elliott’s handwriting.
The CuatrmMANn. On the envelope?
53490—14—-37
578 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. CuarK. Yes.
The CuatrMAN. Perhaps Mr. Baker asked him to do it.
Mr. McGuire. He did plenty of them.
The CHarrMAN. But was not that accompanied by a letter showing
that I was asked to send them out ?
Mr. Crarxk. Oh, I have no complaint about the three documents.
But this was not (indicating).
‘The Cuairman. But they were mailed together with a letter.
Mr. CLrarx. Not this document. I never received a copy of this
from you. These were mailed ‘to several gentlemen at Stanford
University. They brought them in to me.
The CHarrmMan. I left word here with Mr. Baker, and I did not
know the addresses of all these people, but I supposed the documents
went out.
Mr. Cuarx. They did. Dr. Jordan received the three documents
which you sent, which were Mr. Elliott’s original report, his state-
ment and then that sheet of tabulations. Both Dr. Jordan and myself
received these documents properly in connection with your letter,
asking us if we desired to be heard before this committee.
The Cuarrman. Where is Dr. Jordan now ?
Mr. Cuarx. He is in Australia.
Mr. McGuire. There has been, from time to time, Mr. Clark, not
only at this hearing, but at prior hearings, a considerable discussion
as to what really caused the decline of the seals prior to 1834. You
have discussed 1 to some extent. Now, I would like to have your
statement as to the real cause of the decline, that is, when they were
controlled by the Russian Government..
Mr. Cirark. The cause of the decline was plainly the killing of
adult cows, young females, and pups, both male and female. I
brought this out yesterday in the quotations from the record of
Veniaminof, the only authority we have on the subject.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether there was any pelagic sealing
at that time ?
Mr. CrarKk. No, sir; there was no pelagic sealing at that time.
Mr. McGuire. But there was a decline in the herd ?
Mr. Cuarx. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. What has been the effect, in your judgment, of the
treaty of 1911 stopping pelagic sealing ?
Mr. Crark. The effect has been to remove the cause of decline
and to provide adequately for the future recuperation and restora-
tion of the fur seal herd, as evidenced by the fact that the second
season of the operation of that treaty shows the herd to have
increased in its breeding stock 124 per cent.
Mr. McGuire. In your judgment, then, the seal herd is increasing
124 per cent annually?
Mr. Cuark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Now, is the suspension of land sealing necessary ?
Mr. CiarK. It is not.
Mr. McGuire. Is it wasteful, in your judgment ?
Mr. Crarx. It is. It wasted $500,000 worth of seal skins this
summer. It will waste a somewhat greater number next year, and
for each of the four succeeding seasons of the closed time, or about
50,000. Then for nine years following that, the law provides for a
breeding reserve five times too great. This will waste 36,000 animals
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 579
in addition, and as these skins have a value of $52 a piece, according
to press dispatches of the St. Louis sale, the total loss will be in the
neighborhood of $4,250,000, 85,000 seal skins, at a value of say $50
aplece.
Mr McGuire. That is for what length of time ?
Mr. Crarx. In the next 14 years. The law provides for a closed
season of five years; then for a period of nine years in which there is
to be set aside a breeding reserve of 5,000 animals annually, young
males, and as no more than 1,000 a year can be used by the herd in
that time, 4,000 will be wasted each year.
Mr. McGuire. Now, I believe you stated before that the Govern-
ment lost $500,000 in 1913 by not killing the available or killable
animals. That was on the estimate of 10,000 that should have been
killed and were not killed. What other waste to the Government
besides this $500,000 worth of skins is there by reason of those 10,000
males not having been killed ?
Mr. CrarK. The blue fox herd, which depends largely for its winter
food upon the surplus carcasses of the killing fields, will be driven to
desperate straits this winter, and being short of food, they will eat
one another.
Mr. McGurre. Are they cannibalistic ?
Mr. CrarK. Yes,sir. I found in 1912 in a cave the four paws of a
young fox which had been freshly eaten by his companions. Instances
are on record on Otter Island, a small islet which gets peopled with
the foxes when the ice joins it to St. Paul. When the natives go there
to catch foxes they sometimes find just one strong, vicious fox, an
animal that has survived because able to eat his weaker companions.
Mr. McGurre. Then, in addition to the loss of $500,000 for 1913,
pre is a diminution of the fox herd by reason of not having sufficient
ood ?
Mr. Crark. Yes, sir. .
Mr. McGuire. You think that if 10,000 had been killed that they
would have furnished quite sufficient food for the foxes on the
islands and leave sufficient for imerease ?
Mr. Crarxk. Yes; I believe it would have had that effect.
Mr. McGurre. I think you stated the other day briefly that the
department was feeding the natives canned goods. Is that cus-
tomary ?
Mr. Crarx. They have a supply of canned and salted meats in the
stores, but ordinarily the natives would eat the fresh and salted seal
meat in preference to these canned goods. During the present year
they must, however, be existing exclusively on them.
Mr. McGutre. There is no seal meat for this year stored ?
Mr. Crarx. Well, there was no seal meat put aside during the
killing season.
Mr. McGurre. How many seals could have been killed last year
by the department under the present laws and regulations ?
Mr. Crarx. I have stated that in addition to those killed for food
10,000 could have been taken.
Mr. McGuire. I know; but my understanding is that the depart-
ment is prohibited now from taking seals except a certain number
for food under the law.
Mr. Crarx. Yes; there is a provision made in the law for a food
killing.
580 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I mean. Now, how many could the
department have taken, in your judgment, for food purposes ?
Mr. Crark. I have figured out that it would require a minimum of
5,000 seals to give the natives of the Pribulof Islands a ration of a
little over a pound a day for the year. I gave my advice that 5,000
seals as a minimum should be killed. I also called attention to the
fact that in the modus vivendi of 1891-1893 Great Britain agreed
that a normal food killing was 7,500, and therefore it seems to me
that under the law the Department of Commerce should have taken
a minimum of 5,000 and from that up to a maximum of 7,500.
Mr. McGuire. Then the Government has lost, under the present
law, assuming that we could have killed without criticism and legally
7,500, by reason of former computations as to what it would take
for food, 5,000 seals, because of the action of the department in 1913?
Mr. Ciark. Four thousand five hundred. That is the difference
between the 3,000 which was fixed as a minimum and the 7,500
which was fixed as a normal food killing by the modus vivendi.
Mr. McGutre. Now, we lost the price of the 4,500 seal skins, and
that would have been quite sufficient food for the natives, and it
would not have been necessary to have furnished for them salt meats
and canned goods ?
Mr. CruarK. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. And in addition to that, it would have furnished a
limited supply of food for the foxes and fur-bearing animals on the
islands.
Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And in these three respects, under proper regula-
tions from the department, the Government would have saved money ?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
aie McGuire. How much time have you spent on the islands,
all told ¢
Mr. Ciarx. In 1896 I arrived on St. George Island on July 8, and
I was there and on St. Paul until the 21st day of October. Next
year I arrived on St. George Island on the 8th of June and remained
there and on St. Paul until the middle of August. In 1909 I was
there a month, beginning with the 12th of July and extending through
the height of the season. In 1912 I was there from about the 12th
of June until the 9th of September, and in 1913 I was on the islands
from the 13th of July until the 8th of August. That is five seasons,
throughout the height of theseason. I think that is a total of about
9 full months and 18 days.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know of anyone else who has been on those
islands as much as you have ?
Mr. Crark. I do not know exactly. I should imagine that was a
pretty good allowance of time. I do not know of anybody, except
the agents, perhaps; they have been there a longer time.
Mr. McGuire. Well, I simply wanted to know the length of time
that the various representatives of the Government have been there.
Now, what would be your recommendation, if any, to the department
and to Congress as to what should be done?
The CHarrMAN. It seems to me that he went into that the other
day.
Mr. McGuire. Well, not very liberally; he made one or two sug-
gestions. What would be your recommendation as to what should
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 581
be done not only to preserve and augment the number there but to
administer economically and profitably the killing of the seals ?
Mr. Cirark. One thing to be done is to repeal that provision of the
law of 1912 which suspends land killing of superfluous males for five
years and which provides for an excessive breeding reserve for nine
years succeeding that close season. That is the first and most impor-
tant thing. Cf course, the administration of the islands should be
cared for by an adequate personnel of agents, naturalists, and others,
having to do with the care of the herd. The really essential thing to do
is to repeal the law and provide for the removal of thesuperfluous males.
Tf these animals are not removed and killed, they will simply grow
up as fighting bulls and work incalculable harm in the rookeries in
the trampling of the pups and the tearing of mother seals.
Mr. McGurre. And will the condition which you last mentioned be
aggravated as time goes on under present arrangements ¢
Mr. CrarKx. It will simply grow in intensity each year. It will
last the full life of each bull, which is 13 or 14 years, beyond the ter-
mination of the close season. In that way it will extend its baleful
. influence over the herd until 1934. We will not be rid of it until that
time.
Mr. McGutre. In view of the facts developed since pelagic sealing
has been discontinued, are you certain that the diminution of the herd
was caused in the recent past by pelagic sealing ?
Mr. CiarKk. I am certain that it has been caused by that form of
sealing.
Mr. McGuire. What one particularly important fact has been dis-
covered by reason of the branding of the seal pups —that is, the year
they were born ?
Mr. Crarx. The important fact disclosed by that was that yearling
seals as a class, do not come to the hauling grounds in the killing
season.
‘Mr. McGutrre. That would mean that all this contention about
having taken yearlings in the past is settled by the fact that the year-
lings are not there until after the killing season; is that true ?
Mr. CrarKk. That is true.
Mr. McGuire. There have been a great many charges against the
department for unlawful killing. You have been there as the repre-
sentative of the Government at various times. Will you tell us the
different years you were there as the Government’s representative ?
Mr. Crark. I was on the islands in 1896, again in 1897, again in
1909, 1912, and 1913.
Mr. McGuire. While you were there as the representative of the
Government has there at any time been unlawful killing, éxtrava-
gance, or waste, as charged by Henry W. Elliott, save and except a
negligible quantity due to mistakes in clubbing, and so forth, which
is inevitable in killing ?
Mr. CrarK. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. McGuire. Have the Government’s representatives, so far as
ie know, at all times when you were present performed their full
uty ?
Mr. CraeK. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You made a report to the Secretary of Commerce
for 1913?
Mr. CiarK. Yes; I did.
582 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether that report has been pub-
lished ?
Mr. Crarx. Not to my knowledge; it has not been published to my
knowledge.
Mr. McGuire. When did you make the report? When was it
sent In?
Mr. Crarx. The report was dated at Stanford University, Cal.,
September 30, 1913.
r. McGuire. Do you know whether that report has been pub-
lished, Mr. Chairman?
The Cuatrman. I do not.
Mr. McGuire. I would like to have that report published. It
ought to be published and made a part of the record here. I think
the committee ought to have it published.
The CHAarRMAN. Suppose we take that up later—that is, as to what
is the best to do.
Mr. McGuire. I suppose we could have it published now if the
committee wants it. I would like to have it published in connection
with the examination of this witness.
The CHarrman. We will take it up with the committee later. On
page 253, former hearing No. 6, is a message which was sent to the
Senate and House of Representatives by President Taft. I would
like to read it and then have you make such observations as you
care to make.
Mr. McGuire. What is the date of that ?
The CuarrMAN. The date is March 15, 1910.
By the terms of section 1963, United States Revised Statutes, the Secretary of
Commerce and Labor is directed, at the expiration of the lease which gives the
North American Commercial Co. the right to engage in taking fur seals on the islands
of St. Paul and St. George, to enter into a new lease covering the same purpose for a
period of 20 years. The present lease will expire on the 30th of April, 1910, and it is
important to determine whether or not changed conditions call for a modification
of the policy which has so far been followed.
The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor unite in recom-
mending a radical change of this policy. Jt appears that the seal herds on the islands
named have been reduced to such an extent that their early extinction must be looked for,
unless measures for their preservation be adopted. A herd numbering 375,000 12 years
ago is now redi.ced to 134,000, and it is estimated that the breeding seals have been
reduced in the same period of time from 130,000 to 56,000. The rapid depletion of
these herds is undo..btedly to be ascribed to the practice of pelagic sealing, which
prevails in spite of the constant and earnest efforts on the part of this Government
to have it discontinued.
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 abandoned for the present,
and that the Government take over entire control of the islands, including the in-
habitants and the seal herds. The objection which has heretofore been made to this
policy; upon the ground that the Government would engage in private business, has
een 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 controlling question has become one
of conservation.
It is recommended, therefore, that the provision for a renewal of the lease be re-
pealed, and that instead a law be enacted to authorize the Department of Commerce
and Labor to take charge of the islands, with authority to protect the inhabitants
substantially as has been done in the past, and to control the seal herds as far as present
conditions admit, pending negotiations with foreign countries looking to the discontinu-
ance of pelagic sealing. If this result can be obtained, as is confidently believed, there
jt”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 583
is every prospect that the seal herds will not only be preserved but will increase, so
as to make them a source of permanent income.
A draft of a bill covering this matter has been prepared by the Secretary of Com-
merce and Labor, and upon request will be submitted to the appropriate committees.
Wo. H. Tart.
THe Wuite Houses, March 15, 1910.
Do those figures agree with what you submitted; that is, that they
are reduced to 134, 000 2 No doubt the Secretary of Commerce and
Labor was instrumental in fr aming this message. Did you give him
any of this information ?
Mr. Crark. I did not, except in so far as my report might have
influenced the action. I recommended, as I pointed out recently in
my report, that it was unwise to re-lease the islands and that there
should-be an interregnum of from three to six years; that may have
influenced this action. But this is a document, of cour se, that I had
no part in framing.
The CHarrman. Do you think that is correct, where it says “now
reduced to 134,000 ?”’
Mr. Ciarxk. I do not know the basis of those figures. You see,
my report for 1909 stated there were 158,522 animals in the herd. I
have pointed out that that was an estimate. Other people may have
estimated the herd, too, and disagreed with me.
The CuarrMan. What do you mean by saying that you suggested
there be an interregnum of from three to six years? Did you mean
the season of killing ?
Mr. Crarx. No; “of author ity on the islands by which the United
States should be sup? eme and have no lessees; that is, the matter of
re-leasing the islands should be deferred for a period of from three to
six years, until we could learn what was to become of pelagic sealing.
The Cuarrman. I want to ask you a question which I think you
answered yesterday, but I simply want to clear it up in my mind.
Did you say that you asked Elliott and Gallagher to take girth meas-
urements of the sealskins ?
Mr. Ciarx. I protested against the omission of that. I asked that
it be taken, and when it was not to be taken by them I asked permis-
sion to take it myself.
The CuarrMan. That was the only object; I wanted to get it clear
in my mind, because I did not quite remember what your answer was.
Who are the trustees of Stanford University ?
Mr. Crark. The president of the board of trustees is Timothy
Hopkins, of San Francisco. I do not know that I can carry those
14 names in my head. .
The CHatrMAN. Do the best you can.
Mr. Crark. Mr. Charles G. Lathrop is a member of the board, Mr.
Horace Davis, Mr. Charles P. Kells, Mr. William Babcock, Mr.
Vanderlynn Stow, Mr. Frank Miller, Mr. S. F. Leib, Mr. Thomas
Welton Stanford, Mr. Herbert C. Hoover, Mr. Newhall—I can not
give his initials—and Mr. Nickel. They are recent appointees, and I
have not become familiar with their initials.
The Cuarrman. Has D. O. Mills been a trustee at any time?
Mr. CrarK. I do not recall now. His son-in-law, Mr. Whitelaw
Reid, was a trustee of the university for a long time and until his
death.
The CHatrrmMan. While you were the secretary ?
584 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Ciark. Yes, sir. I am not the secretary of the board, how-
ever.
The CHarrmMan. Do you knew Isaac Liebes ?
Mr. CiarK. No, sir; I do not.
Mr. SrepHENS. With reference to mistakes that have been made
in clubbing the seals, you stated yesterday that some of these smaller
ones were killed inadvertently because of the fact that the clubbers
in using the clubs could not tell the head of a yearling from the head
of a 2-year-old. I believe that was about your statement, that
sometimes they were inadvertently killed that way.
Mr. CLiarK. During the food killmg in the fall, when the yearlings
are more numerous—that is, after the commercial killing, these
yearlings appear to some extent, and in accounting for the killing of
the few that are admitted—I mentioned that in the bunches of seals
which come up before the clubbers, the animals huddle together, the
clubbers must knock them on the head. The heads do not vary as
much as the bodies and perhaps the head of one animal may be
struck when another was intended. The head may seem to disclose
an animal of larger size than it really turns out to be. Those are
very infrequent accidents, however.
Mr. STEPHENS. You also said you knew that the females were not
killed for the reason that the seals from which it was intended to take
the hides, the commercial skins, were driven to what is called the
kalling ground, and that each one was lassoed and examined before
taking. How do you harmonize those two statements ?
Mr. Ciarx. Of course, those things could not occur. The lassoing
and examination I was describing represented a set experiment by
Dr. Jordan and his party in 1896 and 1897 in order to determine the
question whether here were females among the bachelors on the
hauling grounds. It could not be applhed to commercial killings.
The only way to handle a fur seal in determining the sex is by throwing
a rope around its neck and twisting it until it cuts through the fur
and gives a grip on the animal. But that experiment was to deter-
mine whether females were among the fepanmre on the hauling
ground, and the showing was that they were all males.
Mr. StepuEens. Was that the case of the 205 skins you said you
examined to ascertain whether the breadth made as much difference
as the length of the skin?
Mr. CiarKk. No. Those 205 were 2-year animals; we killed them
in the regular food killing, you know.
Mr. STEPHENS. You stated you measured how many of those
hides ? .
Mr. CLarx. Two hundred and five of them.
Mr. StepHENS. How many examples did you give of the width?
Mr. CLrarKk. Possibly six or eight.
Mr. STepHENS. Those examples were picked from the 205 indis-
criminately, were they? Did you take them as they came ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes; I did not spend any time on the matter. I
went over it hastily. This matter might be carried further and
something worked out of it, you know. I have not had any time to
do that. I looked into this hastily and picked them out.
Mr. STEPHENS. Would it not have been fair to examine all these
skins and make a division ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 585
Mr. Crark. | did that, and I have given that in my testimony here.
I can give it right now.
Mr. StepHens. Let us have that.
Mr. CuarK. These are the dimensions: The total weight of the
205 green skins is 1,219 pounds, an average of 5.9 pounds; the total
length of the 205 green skins is 6,582.50 inches, which is an average
of 32.1 inches per skin in green state; the total width of those 205
green skins was 4,601.50 inches, an average of 22.4 inches. Now, we
took them in salt also. The total weight of the 205 salted skins was
1,140.25 pounds and the average weight in salt was 5.5 ounces, a
reduction of four-tenths of a pound, which is 6.4 ounces.
Mr. STEPHENS. What per cent of loss would that be? What would
be the difference between the green hide and the salted hide ?
Mr. CLrark. That would have to be figured.
Mr. STEPHENS. You have given the figures and we can figure it out.
Mr. CuarKk. Yes. Now, as the measurement of those salted skins
is the question in dispute between myself and Mr. Elhott let me give
you these figures. The length of these 205 salted skins was 7,404
inches, and that made an average for each skin of 36.1 inches; the
average width of the 205 skins was 4,951.50 inches, which would be
24.1 inches average in width. The skins, you see, in the salting
process had expanded, in other words, had lost the elasticity which
caused them to contract in the green state and under the salting
process they had expanded in size and hed reduced in weight.
Mr. STEPHENS. What was the weight of these sealskins ?
Mr. Ciarx. The average was 5.5 pounds.
Mr. SrepHens. They were above the 5-pound limit agreed upon by
the lease ?
Mr. Crarxk. Yes; the average was 5.9 pounds, which was well
above it, you know.
Mr. STEPHENS. These were all 2-year-old skins ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes; and the clubbers were limited between weights
of 52 pounds and 64 pounds. I want to ask whether that is not a
guaranty of the accuracy of the judgment of the clubbers and of the
control the agents exerted over those men in doing that work, that
they should have kept those 205 animals to an average of 5.9 pounds ?
They were required to keep between 52 pounds and 64 pounds.
Mr. STEPHENS. You gave some basis for the average weight of those
2-year-olds, did you not? .
Mr. CrarK. Yes. I have a summary of the animal weights also.
The total weight 9f the 205 animals was 13,121.50 pounds, an average
of 64 pounds apiece.
Mr. STEPHENS. I believe there was some evidence yesterday to the
effect that the yearling seals only averaged 39 pounds; is that correct ?
Mr. Cuark. I offered that as the report given by Mr. Elliott.
Mr. StepHENS. What is your experience about that?
Mr. Crarx. I have not weighed the yeailings, you see, because I
never had an opportunity to get hold of the animals. However, I
would want to determine it on a different basis because Mr. Elliott’s
basis was only six animals, which is too small a numbe..
Mr. SrepHens. Would it not be fair to suppose that the weight of
an animal would bear the same relation to the weight of the skins in
the small ones and in the large ones, in the yearlings and 2-year olds ?
586 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Crark. I showcd in the skins I brought to your attention
yesterday that you could not depend on that, because an animal
weighing 105 pounds in one instance had a skin but little bigger,
424 by 254 inches, than one weighing only 52 pounds, 40 by 244.
In other words, an animal of clear sinew and muscle might weigh
more than a fat, plump animal, because the blubber——
Mr. STEPHENS (interposing). That would be an exceptional ease,
But take the king throughout, do you not think there could be
some rule established ?
Mr. CLrark. That is what I tried to do. If I had been allowed or
had an opportunity to kill 200 yearlings last fall I would have brought
some of this data, but I did not find the yearlings ?
Mr. SrepHEeNs. You think it would be very hard to distinguish
between a yearling and a 2-year-old—that is your idea?
Mr. Crarx. Yes; that is my idea. I want, of couse, to-call to
your mind the fact that I showed that the 2-year-old that was born
about the middle of June had a great start over one that was born
the middle of July and that that start kept them apart in size. As
a result you would find a 2-year-old that was pretty big and another
one that was pretty small. It is the small 2-year-old and the big
yearling that are hard to distinguish; not the big 2-year-old and the
little yearling; those could be easily distinguished. It is different
with the big yearling and the little 2-year-old.
Mr. SrepHEens. Form your evidence I gather that you are in favor
of killing the seals to a certain extent ?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEPHENS. Suppose they should be killed, who would be ben-
efited—the United States Government ?
Mr. CLrarK. The United States Government would receive all of
the money. Instead of receiving $10 per skin as under the last lease,
the Government would receive the full price which the skins bring in
the market.
Mr. StrpHEens. Have you recommended that the islands be leased
and that these animals be killed? In your report did you mention
that ?
Mr. CLrarKk. I have not. J made a recommendation, first, that
there be an interregnum, a period in which we could determine about
pelagic sealing, leaving it open for the Government to re-lease if it
wanted to, but I did insist that any leasing company should be shut
out of all privileges except those of taking and curing the skins, that
is, that it should not have any control over the killing.
The CHarrMan. You spoke about the lessees paying $10 askin under
the former lease. The skins in the London market brought as high
as $50 and over, did they not?
Mr. CLark. I know nothing about what the skins brought in London
during the company’s time, but I have in mind the fact that press
dispatches, coming to me in California, as to the recent sale of skins
in St. Louis, stated they brought as high as $52 a skin.
The CHAIRMAN. So the Government was really in a bad business
enterprise when it got only $10 and the skins brought as high as $50
and $60 ?
Mr. CLarK. Well, that was according to the contract.
The CHarrMAn. I know; but it was a bad business venture, was it
not?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 587
Mr. CirarxK. The sealskins were not worth $50 at the time that lease
was entered into.
The CHArRMAN. But after all do you net think it was a poor busi-
ness for us to have a contract where the Government received $10
for a skin and the company received from $28 to $60 a skin ?
Mr. Crarx. | would not like to give an opinion on that.
The CHarrMAN. And would it not be a powerful inducement for the
leasing company to take all the seals they could get, from yearlings
on up to 4-year-olds ?
Mr. CLark. It certainly would be a profitable thing, but
The CHarRMAN (interposing). And considerations of that kind may
have caused you to say in your 1909 report that no seal was too small
for the company to take ?
Mr. Crark. The Government, however, had allowed them to take
15,000 seals——
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Was that one of the considerations
that moved you to say that in your report ?
Mr. CLark. I want to say that my recommendation
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You can answer that yes or no and
then explain it.
Mr. Crarx. No.
The CuarrMan. That had nothing to do with it?
Mr. CLark. My interest in the herd has been one from a scientific
point of view. | wanted, for example, to see the scientific problems
of the herd settled, and I complained about the killing of 1909 most
because it obscured a scientific fact which I would like to have settled.
I was not ignorant of or inattentive to the fact that the Government
could make more money by operating the seal islands on its own
account.
The CHarRMAN. One more question, Mr. Clark. Whether the
company took, say, 3,000 seals or 6,000 seals on the islands, their
expense would practically be the same, would it not?
Ir. CLarK. The company ?
The Cuarrman. Yes. It would not cost the company much more
money to take 6,000 seals than it would to take, say, half that number ?
Mr. Crarxk. Their plant being stationed there, I should say not;
they had their plant all equipped and they could not discharge their
men.
Mr. McGurre. There is just one other question I want to ask Mr,
Clark. There has been so much said about the various groups of
seals that the Members of the House of Representatives, when some
legislation was passed respecting the killing, seemed to be confused
as to the meaning of the terms ‘“‘bachelors,” ‘breeding cows,”
“bulls,” and so forth. I wish you would group them during the
killing season and immediately afterwards as well as before they leave
the islands. For the information of the committee and the House
state what bulls mean, what bachelors mean, what breeding cows
mean, and so forth.
Mr. Ciark. A breeding bull is an animal that has charge of a harem
of cows. An idle bullis an adult bull which has failed to get a harem;
he has been shut out and is a superfluous animal. His office is to take
the place of some active or harem bull which may become disabled
through accident or from any other cause. A young bull is a bull
588 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
fully matured for breeding purposes, but not quite as strong, com-
pact, and courageous as an adult bull.
The CHarrMAN. At what age is that?
Mr. CLark. Anywhere from 6 up. These three categories of males
have definitely separated themselves from the bachelors and haunt
the breeding grounds, the active bulls in charge of the harems, the
idle bulls back ot them, and the younger bulls hovering in the rear.
The cows are the adult females, of the age of 3 years, when they
bear their first pup, and upwards. The virgin cows are the 2-year
olds which come late in the breeding season to the breeding grounds to
receive the bull for the first time. The yearlings are animals of both
sexes. They leave the isiands late and come to the islands late.
The bachelors are the young males from 4 years down to 2. The
occupy hauling grounds separate from the breeding grounds ihroush
fear of the adult bulls. A bachelor appearing in the harems would be
summarily dealt with by the bulls in charge. The bachelors there-
fore herd by themselves, and it is from their hauling grounds that ani-
mals are driven off for killing pel ee which is done without dis-
turbing the breeding females at all. They are driven up im groups
near the salting houses and killed. The groups brought to the
killing field contain 5-year olds, 4-year olds, 3-year olds, and 2-year
olds. The animals killed come chiefly from the 3 and 2 year old
classes. ‘They are knocked on the head and skinned, the other ani-
mals being turned back to the sea to return to the hauling grounds or
do what they please. That is the order of life of the animals, all
classes considered.
Mr. McGuire. The breeding bull 's with the harem ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Is the 2-year-old female served ?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Late in the season ?
Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Where are they up to that time?
Mr. Cuark. Probably at sea.
Mr. McGuire. When you refer to the bachelor seals, you mean, as
& rule, the seals that congregate back of the harems and back of the
inactive bulls ?
Mr. Ciark. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Those bulls are how old ?
Mr. CrarK. From 6 to 8.
Mr. McGurre. And the younger bulls have been driven away by
the bulls in charge of the harems?
Mr. Crark. Not exactly driven away, but kept from coming in
closer through fear of their full-grown rivals.
Mr. McGurre. In charge of the harems?
Mr. CLarK. Yes, sir.
Mr. SrepPHENs. Can you tell why Dr. Jordan was so anxious that
this treaty should not be affected by legislation and why he sent this
telegram to Mr. Sulzer? What interest did he have to serve which
caused him to send that telegram ?
Mr. Cuiarx. In the first place, Mr. Sulzer called upon him for help;
in the second place, Dr. Jordan had fought for 12 years to secure the
treaty, and he was well satisfied that it was the one thing necessary
to preserve the herd. When he saw that a resolution had been intro-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 589
duced in the House proposing to suspend land sealing for 15 years and
that such a provision was attached to this bill, putting the treaty into
effect, he realized that if it were allowed to become a law, and we cut
off our land catch for 10 years, 15 years, or 5 years, Japan and Great
Britain would become dissatisfied and abrogate their treaty. With
the abrogation of the treaty, pelagic sealing would be resumed, and
the herd would go on its way to destruction.
Mr. StepHens. If land sealing had been stopped at that time, as
was suggested and which he opposed, would it not have been greatly
to the benefit of the persons who had the right to kill the seals until
the expiration of the lease?
Mr. Crark. The lease had then expired.
Mr. STEPHENS. But they were seeking to reinstate it, were they
not?
Mr. CrarKk. No; that had all been passed, you know. The Dixon
law, in 1910, had ended the leasing system. This was in 1912, as we
were approaching the passage of the law which put into effect the
treaty of 1911.
Mr. StePHENS. That was the treaty that was objected to?
Mr. CLark. Yes,sir. Yousay he was objecting to the treaty? He
was objecting not to the treaty, but to the provision in law of 1912 sus=
pending land sealing, which was, in effect, a repudiation of our cons
tract under the treaty. In the treaty we agreed to give 15 per cent of
our land catch to Great Britain for Canada and 15 per cent of our land
catch to Japan to satisfy her pelagic sealers. The amendment carry-
ing the suspension was troubling Mr. Sulzer. :
Mr. McGurre. And would have abrogated the treaty ?
The CoarrMANn. The treaty provides, though, that if the United
States Government stops all killing for a period that it shall pay so
much money to these different countries.
Mr. Crark. The treaty reserved, very properly, to the United States
the right to control its sealing and to stop it at any time. It also
stated that that right was dependent upon a necessity to preserve and
increase the herd. If it became necessary in order to preserve and
increase the herd for the United States to stop the killing on land, the
treaty permitted it at any time. In order to stop the land sealing
however, the United States must demonstrate its necessity for the
preservation and increase of the herd.
Mr. McGutrz. Is that the present treaty ?
Mr. Crark. That is in the treaty. The present treaty reads that
way.
ia McGurre. If the United States can show that it is necessary
to stop land killing in order to increase the herd, we do not have to
pay any money ?
Mr. Crarx. We do have to pay.
Mr. McGurre. We have to pay anyway ?
Mr. Crarx. Yes; if we take advantage of our right—that reserved
right—we have to pay in lieu of a share in the land catch $10,000 a
year to these parties. When we did stop land killing, however, it was
up to us to demonstrate that it was necessary for the preservation and
increase of the herd. I have shown you gentlemen that land killing
has had no effect as yet and that the herd has, notwithstanding
increased 124 per cent. Therefore the suspension of land killing is
not necessary and is a violation of the treaty.
590 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. McGuire. In that event we are violating the treaty right now?
Mr. Crarx. That is certainly what we are doing.
Mr. SrerHEens. Why should we not be expected to do that?
Mr. Crarx. If the treaty is violated, the persons who are interested
in this treaty and who stood back of pelagic sealing may say, ‘‘ You
have violated your contract and we will repudiate the treaty.” This
done, the pelagic fleets will reassemble themselves and begin, again, to
kill the female seals at sea.
The Cuarrman. If they should accept your version of it; but if they
are satisfied, that is the end of it.
Mr. McGutre. Oh, yes; if they are satisfied.
Mr. Exxiorr. They are satisfied.
The CHArRMAN. One other question. You said a moment ago that
Congressman Sulzer asked for help from Dr. Jordan, and that was the
- reason he sent that telegram. What was the help he asked for?
Mr. Crarxk. I mentioned that fact merely to call attention to the
fact that Dr. Jordan did not strike out of a clear sky with his telegram
to Mr. Sulzer.
The CHarrMAN. Well, what did Congressman Sulzer ask him to do?
Mr. Crarx. I do not recall that telegram. Ido not think I saw it;
but Dr. Jordan received a telegram from him and responded. That
is all.
Mr. Parron. It was in answer to a telegram from: Congressman
Sulzer that he sent his telegram ?
Mr. CiarK. Yes, sir.
The CuarrMan. That is the reason I asked the question. He said
he asked for help, and I thought he could probably clear that up.
Mr. Crark. I do not think I saw the telegram. My understanding
was that Mr. Sulzer had found himself up against a dead wall, that
something had to be done, and he asked Dr. Jordan to help him.
By unanimous consent the committee adjourned to meet Wedes-
day, February 25, 1914, at 10 o’clock a. m.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
House oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., Wednesday, February 25, 1914.
The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Hon. John H. Stephens, Hon. John T. Watkins, Hon.
Henry Bruckner, Hon. Bird 8. McGuire, and Hon. Charles E. Patten.
TESTIMONY OF MR. WALTER I. LEMBKEY.
The CoarrMan. Mr. Lembkey, have you a written statement that
you wish to submit ?
Mr. Lemprey. I have not a written consecutive statement, Mr.
Chairman. I have some notes here, to which I wish to refer and
which I shall follow rather closely, but I have no written statement
to submit to the committee.
The CHarRMAN. You may be sworn.
(The witness was duly sworn by the Chairman.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 591
The CuairMAN. Do you want to proceed in your own way ?
Mr. Lempxey. I would wish, Mr. Chairman, that I might do so as
nearly as possible, in my own wa
Mr. McGurre. Would it not be well before the witness starts his
own narration to let the record show who he is and his official po-
sition ?
The CHarRMAN. He may state that, yes. Are you still connected
with the Government ?
Mr. Lemexey. [ am no longer connected with the Government.
My name is Walter I. Lembkey, formerly agent seal fisheries, under
the Department of Commerce, United States Government.
The CHAIRMAN. For how many years were you agent of the Goy-
ernment ?
Mr. Lemexey. I was appointed assistant agent at the seal fisheries
in 1899, and agent in 1900. I was agent-continuously from 1900
until 1913.
_ Mr. StepHens. You had been agent of the United States Gov-
ernment? ~
Mr. Lempxey. On the Seal Islands, yes.
Mr. StepHEeNs. On the Pribilof Islands?
Mr. LemBxey. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. When did you leave the service ?
Mr. Lempxery. My service as agent termimated on the 30th of
June, 1913. I was ‘then on the Pribilof Islands, and was continued
in the service under a temporary appointment until the 30th of Sep-
tember, 1913.
The Crarrman. You may proceed with your statement, Mr.
Lembkey.
Mr. LEMBKEY. fives the last meeting of the committee was held, at
which I attended as a witness, the committee has sent its own agents,
Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher, to the Pribilof Islands in Alaska, to
report upon the conditions there. These agents, after visiting the
islands, have made a joint report, in addition to which Mr. Elliott
alone has made a separate report, and both of these reports have been
incorporated in the reports of the hearings of this committee. Al-
though the Elliott-Gallagher report contains much printed matter
already i in the hearings, it might be said to consist in the main of a
record of their inspection of the rookeries and of the conditions in
general on the islands.
I intend to pass over this joint report without comment, except
to say that there is nothing that can be found therein to disprove
anything I have said to the committee or in my reports, or to show
that any material fact or condition relating to seal life had been sup-
pressed or misrepresented by me. I base this assertion upon the
fact that the Elhott-Gallagher report fails to disclose anything as a
result of their examination bringing mto question any statement
made by me previous to their examination.
The report of Mr. Elliott alone consists of little new matter, but
mainly of a reiteration of old testimony before the committee with
a considerable amount of personal matter inserted. To this purely
ersonal matter it is not my purpose to pay attention. ‘There are,
owever, in the Elhott report several new charges of a nature per-
sonal to myself which, for the purpose of the record, I feel that I am
592 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
not justified in overlooking, and these I intend to treat as briefly as
possible.
On page 263, of hearing No. 1, dated October 13, 1913, occurs the
following: \
When Morton returned July 11, 1900, to St. Paul Island, he found Lembkey ill
and suffering from an ulcerated jaw, or threatened necrosis of his jawbone. Lembkey
obtained an immediate leave of absence and left the island at once, on June 18, pro-
ceeded direct to San Francisco on Liebes’s chartered ship Homer, to go under a
surgeon’s treatment when he arrived there (on or about June 27 or 28, or early in
July, 1900).
i the Dae Morton became ill, and died July 15, 1900. He died in the
Government agent’s house on St. Paul Island. The news of Morton’s death reached
Washington and San Francisco on or about August 1 to 8 following. Lembkey,
who had in the meantime been relieved by surgical treatment, had started back
to the islands on the same vessel of the lessees which carried him down, the Homer.
She sailed on or about August 8 for this return trip to St. Paul. Before he left San
Francisco, and while down there on this errand, as above stated, he was a frequent
visitor to the office of Isaac Liebes, on those matters of business which were connected
with his living on the islands with his family free of all cost for board, together with
service for not himself, but for his wife and daughter. He also had the business of
his passage up and down free for his wife and daughter on that vessel, and himself,
if his allowance of $600 per annum for traveling expenses did not meet his own trip
costs to and from Washington.
Thus Mr. Lembkey became very well acquainted with Mr. Liebes, and the seals
never failed to form a common bond of interest. Liebes soon knew Lembkey well.
When Liebes learned of Morton’s death, as usual, he at once looked for a “‘proper
successor” for the man whom he could trust as a United States agent in charge. He
sent word to David Starr Jordan, then at Palo Alto, that he (Liebes) desired him
(Jordan) to telegraph Secretary Gage of the immediate need for selection of a fit suc-
cessor to John Morton, and that he (Jordan) desired the appointment of W. J. Lemb-
key; that was done by Jordan, on or about August 25 or 28, or thereabouts. On Sep-
tember 30, 1900, Gage ordered, as Morton’s successor, the appointment of Lembkey,
and notified Ezra W. Clark that he had done so at the request of Dr. Jordan. Clark
had been promised the place and did not fail to tell why he had lost it.
I wish to deny that I was a frequent visitor in the office of Isaac
Liebes in 1900 or at any time. I never met Mr. Liebes until 1908 or
1909, when I was introduced to him in Washington.
I wish to deny that I or my family ever received board free on the
Seal Islands or anywhere.
I wish to deny that I ever received free transportation on the ves-
sels of the North American Commercial Co.
I wish to deny that Isaac Liebes ever recommended my appoint-
ment for the position of agent of seal fisheries, and to deny that any
member of the lessee company, or any person connected with the
lessee company ever recommended my appointment for that or any
other position; and I wish to deny that Dr. Jordan ever recommended
my appointment to that position.
Mr. McGuire. That is a denial of the whole paragraph.
Mr. Lempxkey. I deny the whole paragraph; yes.
Mr. McGuire. Who made that statement in that paragraph?
Mr. Lempxey. It occurs in Mr. Elhott’s own report. It is in the
text in such a manner as to lead me to infer that it was his own state-
ment.
The CHatRMAN. Did you come down on a vessel of the lessee?
Mr. LemBxey. At what time ?
The CHarrMAN. At the time stated here.
Mr. Lemspxey. I did not make the entire journey on a vessel of the
lessee in 1900, if that is the time you speak of.
The CHarrMANn. Did you do so at any other time?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 593
Mr. Lempxey. Oh, yes; many times.
Mr. McGuire. And paid your way ?
Mr. Lempxey. Always; yes.
Mr. McGurre. Always paid your own way ?
Mr. Lempxey. Always paid my way. On this partcular trip I
traveled on the vessel of the lessee from the islands to Dutch Harbor,
about 200 miles. I left the vessel there and she returned to the
islands on what was known as the coal trip. I waited in Dutch Harbor
and got on board a vessel called the Luella, which was coming down
from Nome after having discharged cargo up there, and travelled on
her to Eureka, Cal., where she stopped for two or three days, and then
continued her journey with me on board of her, until she got to San
Francisco. In this particular trip, to which Mr. Elhott refers, I trav-
elled only 200 miles on the company’s vessel.
Mr. STEPHENS. Was Mr. Liebes on the vessel ?
Mr. Lempxey. No.
Mr. STEPHENS. Or any of the lessees ?
Mr. Lempxey. No.
The CuarrmMan. Did you go back on the Homer from San Francisco ?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, I took passage on the Homer back from San
Francisco.
Mr. StepHEeNS. You received your appointment about that time,
did you not?
Mr. Lempxey. IJ had received my appointment as assistant agent
the year previous to 1900.
Mr. StepHens. At the time you took this trip, or before ?
Mr. Lempxey. That was a year before I took this trip.
Mr. STEPHENS. You received your appointment the year before?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes.
The CHarrMANn. Before we go any further, let me inquire whether
it is the wish of the committee that we should let Mr. Lembkey pro-
ceed, and then ask questions after he gets through ?
Mr. StepHens. I think we had better do that.
The CHarrMAn. I am merely making this as a suggestion now.
Mr. Lempxey. I am perfectly willing to have any member of the
committee interrupt my statement at any time he desires for the pur-
pose of getting more information on any topic that might arise during
poner etiené: It is a matter, of course, with which I have nothing
to do.
<n CHarrMANn. I think the committee will gain time and get better
results.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Chairman, I[ take it that this examination will
be very much like the examination of Mr. Clark; that the examina-
tion of the chair and some of the members of the committee will be,
to a greater or less degree, of the nature of a cross-examination; while
my own examination of Mr. Lembkey will be to draw out such facts
or such statements as he has in his mind that he wants to make. I
think I am more or less familiar with the statements and observations
he wants tomake. In Mr. Clark’s examination, the cross-examination
we might say, of the chairman was, in the beginning; that is, the chair-
man asked the first questions, while the direct examination was con-
ducted more toward the latter part of the examination. I want to
get Mr. Lembkey’s ideas on a number of propositions that I have in
mind. I do not care whether it is first or last, but it rather occurs to
53490—14——38
594 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
me that it might be better if we have that which might be termed
cross-examination after we have heard what Mr. Lembkey has to say,
and that I will examine him on these statements, together with some
other things that I want to bring in.
The CuarrMan. You would rather interrogate him as we go along?
Mr. McGuire. Yes; I should like to.
‘The CuarrMan. Then he may proceed with his statement, and you
may ask such questions as occur to you. We will proceed in that way.
I only mention that because I thought perhaps we could gain time.
Mr. McGuire. I am perfectly willing to wait until the last, after
the other members of the committee have examined him. ;
The Cuarrman. I think it is all right to interrogate him as you
suggest.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Lembkey, who is Mr. Gallagher ?
Mr. Lemspxey. Mr. Gallagher, so far as I know, was the agent of
this committee, and arrived on the seal islands in 1913, in company
with Mr. H. W. Elliott.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know by what authority he was there?
Mr. Lempxey. I have this knowledge on that subject. When Mr.
Elliott arrived on the island he exhibited to me a letter, which I
believe was signed by the chairman of this committee, authorizing
him or directing him to proceed to the seal islands, and I think in
that letter Mr. Gallagher was mentioned; I had had the idea he was
mentioned as a stenographer, but I am not certain.
Mr. McGuire. You do not know whether Mr. Gallagher was ever
on the islands before ?
Mr. Lempxry. He was not on the islands previously during the
period I was there.
Mr. McGurre. He never had been on the islands while you were
there ?
Mr. Lempxey. Previous to 1913; no.
Mr. McGurre. Had he ever been connected, so far as you know,
with seal killing ?
Mr. Lempxery. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. McGurre. Or as an expert in seal handling and seal killing ?
Mr. Lempxey. I never heard of him before in that connection.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Elliott makes a statement there that while you
were in San Francisco you were a frequent visitor of Mr. Liebes.
Who was Liebes ?
Mr. Lempxey. Who was he? I understood he had some connec-
tion with the North American Commercial Co , but beyond that un-
derstanding I could not say.
Mr. McGuire. You were at that time an employee of the Govern-
ment on the Pribilof Islands ?
Mr. LemBxey. I was.
Mr. McGutre. And connected with seal killing and seal manage-
ment in general ? U
Mr. Lempxkey. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Is that statement of Elliott’s that you, in 1900,
ee Liebes frequently while you were in San Francisco, true or
alse ?
Mr. LemBxey. False.
Mr. Watkins. Mr. Chairman, I suggest, in order to conduct the
proceedings in a dignified and legislative way—that is, a manner in
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 595
which members of a committee of this character should conduct it—
that language of that kind ought not to be allowed at all. There is
no necessity of getting into a personal wrangle or controversy. The
putting of questions of that kind, as to whether it is true or false, is
entirely unnecessary, it is unparliamentary, and not only that, but it
brings us into disrepute as a committee and lowers the dignity of
this committee, and I think the questions should be put and answers
should be made in an orderly, dignified, and respectful way.
Mr. StepHeNs. Further than that, it is asking the opinion of the
witness, and not calling for a statement of fact. What we are after
is a statement of facts.
Mr. McGuire. Let me ask this question: Will it be satisfactory to
the members of the committee if I ask purely legal questions of the
witness ?
Mr. Watkins. I think so, of course, but I do not consider that is
a proper question at all to bring up a matter of personal controversy
and to lower the dignity of the committee by putting questions of
that character, which will bring about a friction between the wit-
nesses, which is entirely uncalled for and unnecessary.
Mr. McGuire. Does the gentleman contend that the question
which I asked was not a purely legal question, and one which would
ig peated, under proper circumstances and conditions, in a court
of law?
Mr. Warxrins. So far as my experience as a lawyer for thirty-odd
years’ standing goes, it would not be; it would not be allowed in a
court of law.
Mr. McGutre. I think I understand something of the rules of evi-
dence. I have practiced for 16 years in the courts of the United
States and various courts of the country, and that is a perfectly
proper question, as I understand the law.
Mr. Bruckner. I am glad I am not a lawyer! ([Laughter.]
Mr. STEPHENS. Let him give the facts and we will draw the con-
clusions ourselves.
Mr. McGurre. But here has arisen a question of evidence.
Mr. StepHens. Who is the judge of that, this committee or the
witness ?
Mr. McGurre. The gentleman (Mr. Watkins) states I am wrong
as a matter of evidence. My contention is that I am right, as a
matter of evidence. I am perfectly willing to produce the authori-
ties. So far as the dignity of the committee is concerned, I think
the dignity of the committee was seriously challenged when Mr.
Elliott was sent to the islands with a record here of a law violator.
Mr. StepHeNns. Who?
Mr. McGuire. Elliott.
Mr. StepHEeNS. That is a serious charge you are making. That
will require some proof.
Mr. McGuire. [ have the proof all right. It is undenied.
Mr. Exxtiotr. Where ?
Mr. McGuree. That he used Senator Burnham’s frank, and the
evidence is before this committee that Senator Burnham repudi-
ated it.
Mr. Exxiorr. I deny the statement. You have not proved it, not
a scintilla of it. There is not a fragment of proof of that.
596 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. I want the dignity of the committee sustained, but
I am frank to say that I assume that I differ very materially
Mr. Exxiort (interrupting). You haven’t got a fragment of proof
of that.
Mr. McGuire (continuing). With the committee on some things
the committee has done.
Mr. STEPHENS. You have your remedy. Appeal to the House. I
do not care, as one member of the committee, to be criticized by you.
I have done what I thought was right, and have no apologies to make.
Mr. McGuire. I want to keep entirely within the rules, and I do
not see how I am going to examine this witness where there is a con-
tention as to the legality of the questions asked if a majority of the
committee makes a ruling.
Mr. Warxins. If we want to be technical, we could raise the ob-
jection that it is a leading question, calls for the opinion of the wit-
ness, and was put in such a manner as to bring about a personal con-
troversy and feeling which is unnecessary.
Mr. StepHENS. And suggested the answer that was desired.
Mr. McGutre. It was a direct question. I asked if that state-
ment was true or false. That is a direct question.
The CHarrMANn. Let me make a suggestion: For instance, the wit-
ness made a statement about some paragraphs on page 263 of hear-
ing No. 1. Let us see whether we can not overcome this by you
framing your questions in this way: ‘‘Mr. Lembkey, what have you
to say about paragraph 2 on page 263?” Then let the witness make
his own statement.
Mr. Warxrns. That would not be leading and would not call for
the opinion of the witness, and it would not bring the committee
in disrepute by using a character of language which is unparlia-
mentary.
Mr. Bruckner. Oh, let us get down to hardpan.
The CnoarrMan. Is there any objection on your part to frame
your questions in that way ? .
Mr. MoGurre. Oh, no. I do not want to be placed in the position
here of asking improper questions. That question, however, does
not call for an opinion of Zhe witness. That question calls for a fact
The witness stated the facts as he understands them to be. If I
ask whether any statement is true or false, if he knows, he can state,
so it is not an opinion. But I will see if we can not get along with-
out any friction.
The CuarrMan. I believe we can, if you will just direct the witness’s
attention to what you want him to explain, and let him do it in his
own way.
Mr. MoGutre. I think probably we can manage it all right.
The CHATRMAN. Let us try it, anyhow.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Lembkey, you say that this charge that you
were frequently at Liebes’s in 1900 was made, and that in fact you
never met Liebes until eight or nine years after that? Is that true?
Mr. LemBxey. That is true.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know why Mr. Elliott would make a state-
ment of that kind?
Mr. Lempxey. I have no idea—that is, I do not know.
Mr. McGurre. The statement in the Elliott report which you have
just read is to the effect that Liebes recommended you for the posi-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 597
tion to which you were appointed instead of Mr. Morton? Did
Liebes recommend you ?
Mr. Lempxey. He did not, to my knowledge.
Mr. McGuire. I believe you stated you did not even know him at
that time ?
Mr. Lempxey. I did not know him at that time.
Mr. McGuire. Who appointed you?
Mr. Lempxey. The Secretary of the Treasury appointed me. Just
who he was at that time, I do not know, but I would infer it was
Mr. Gage.
Mr. McGuire. How long had you then been in the employ of the
Government ?
Mr. Lempxey. For about 11 years, as nearly as I can remember.
I was appointed first in 1890 as a clerk in the Treasury.
Mr. McGuire. You may proceed with the next proposition which
you have in mind.
Mr. Lempxey. I wish to take up briefly the effect of salt on seal-
skins. In the previous hearings of the committee considerable stress
was laid upon the questicn whether sealskins gain or lose weight as
the result of being salted. Special attention was paid to this point
because it was charged by Mr. Elliott that agents of the department
had purposely and wrongfully killed on the islands seals having skins
weighing less than the regulations permitted, which skins when
salted weuld gain enough weight through salting to bring them
within the limits of weight prescribed by the department. Mr.
Elliott claimed that the effect of saltmg was to increase considerably
the weight of askin. Mr. Elliott’s argument was that the skin would
absorb a portion of the salt with which it came in contact, thereby
increasing the weight to that extent.
The argument of Dr. Evermann and myself was to the effect that
salt extracted the animal juices from the pelt and the blubber through
the action of osmosis, substituting for those juices a saline solution,
and that the net result of this mterchange of fluids was a loss in weight
in the pelt. As evidence, the weights of green skins taken on the
islands for several years were produced before the committee by me
and others, together with the weights of the same skins taken in
London after those skins had been in salt for some months. <A com-
parison of the island green and the London salt weights showed that
no increase in weight from salting had occurred in those skins.
Mr. Bruckner. Did not Mr. Clark state Monday morning that the
skin was three or four ounces heavier after it was salted ?
Mr. Lempxey. I did not hear him make that statement.
Mr. McGurre. No; he did not make that statement. He stated
that these particular skins were heavier because the rock salt was left
in there.
Mr. Bruckner. Oh, yes, that is right.
The CHarrMaAn. I want to direct the attention of the witness to
something which may help him to clear it up: These 400 skins that
were discussed before the committee were weighed on the islands
before they were salted and after they were salted, were they not?
Mr. Lempxey. I superintended the weighing of them before they
were salted. J understood that afterwards they were weighed by
others. I was not present at that weighing.
598 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuarrMan. I only spoke of that at this time because that
would be a pretty good way to settle the salt question that we have
had so much dispute about heretofore.
Mr. McGuire. I understand the witness is now testifymg about
other skins which he salted.
Mr. Bruckner. The witness in testifying stated that the skins were
not heavier after being salted. I was led to believe they were by a
statement made by Mr. Clark on Monday morning, as I understood
it. That is the reason I raised the question. I am frank to admit
I do not know the first thing about it. I only desire information.
Mr. McGuire. I think you will find, upon examination of the
record, that you misunderstood Mr. Clark’s statement.
Mr. Bruckner. Undoubtedly you are correct.
Mr. McGuire. You may proceed, Mr. Lembkey.
Mr. LemBxey. Several instances also were cited of the weighing
of green skins on the island and the subsequent weighing of them
after salting while the skins were still on the islands, the comparison
of which weights bore out our contention that those skins lost weight
through salting. Mr. Elliott had never performed any experiments
to determine what change, if any, occurred in the skins through the
action of the salt and therefore was unable to produce any evidence
to aD Mabe his contention.
While the green and salt weights of sealskins had been compared
several times on the island, as a matter of fact no extended and
systematic effort had at this time ever been made by anyone to deter-
mine this question. For this reason, and after the hearings mentioned
had been concluded, the Bureau of Fisheries determined to conduct
experiments on a large scale for the purpose of ascertaining definitely
and conclusively what effect salt had on the weight of sealskins. It
was determined to weigh every skin that was taken from seals killed
in the season of 1912 before any of the skins were placed in salt, to
number each skin with a serial number on a tag attached permanently
to the skin, and to weigh the same skins after they had been in salt
for varying periods, and by a comparison of the green and salt weights
thus taken to determine just what change, if any, occurred in the
skin as a result of its being brought into contact with salt. This
experiment was carried out. Every skin taken on the islands that
year, so far as I know, was provided with a permanent numbered
tag, so that the skin might thereafter be identified, was weighed just
after it had been removed from the animal and before it had been
salted, and afterwards weighed after it had been in salt for periods
varying from a few days to over a month. These weights thus
obtained were furnished to the Bureau of Fisheries and are now on
file there. As I am not now connected with the bureau, it is impos-
sible for me to furnish a complete list of those weights to the com-
mittee. I am able to furnish the committee, however, with the
weights of over 200 skins which were weighed by me and others
during the period:stated, and in accordance with the methods out-
lined, which weights are published in Bureau of Fisheries Document
No. 780, being a report on the fishery and fur industries of Alaska
in 1912.
The CHarrmMan. When you said “weighed by you and others,”
whom do you mean by “‘others”’ ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 599
Mr. Lempxey. These were the two hundred and odd skins that Mr.
Clark has mentioned in his testimony, and they were weighed by the
joint efforts of Mr. Clark, Mr. Marsh, and myself, and all the white
and native population of the islands, as a matter of fact. During the
experiment, | suppose every man on the islands, both white and
native, had something to do with it.
I desire to submit for the record an extract from the report made
of this experiment, found on pages 83 to 95 of the document cited.
I think it would be of considerable interest to the committee to be
able to determine just how this experiment was made, and for that
reason I have quoted in full from this report those pages therein
which haye particular reference to this experiment. Perhaps the
committee does not wish me to read this, and if so, I will hand it to
the stenographer without reading.
Mr. McGurre. It will be all right to have that made a part of the
testimony of the witness ?
The CHarrMaNn. I think so. That may be inserted in the record.
Mr. STEPHENS. By whom was that report made ?
Mr. Lempxey. That is an extract from a report made by myself
on this subject.
Mr. STEPHENS. To whom?
Mr. Lempxey. To the Commissioner of Fisheries.
Mr. STEPHENS. When ?
Mr. Lempxey. In the year 1912.
Mr. StepHens. Has it ever been published ?
Mr. Lemepxey. It has been published, as I just stated, and may be
found in Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 780.
Mr. STEPHENS. At what pages?
Mr. Lempxey. Pages 84 to 93, both inclusive.
Mr. Stepuens. If it has been printed, why should we reprint it ?
Mr. Lempxey. I desire to have this appear in my statement at this
point, if the committee will permit it, because it gives an explanation
much better than I could give orally of the experiment and of all the
facts connected with it.
Mr. Stepuens. IJ have no objection.
The Cuarrman. It will be printed in the record at this point.
(The extract from Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 780, thus
referred to, is as follows:)
Tags for convenient use were each provided with about 18 inches of twine, dou-
bled in the middle and looped through a hole in the tag. They were next arranged
serially on wires, 200 to each wire. These tags, as many as might be needed, thus
could be carried about to be affixed to skins without danger of disarranging the
sequence of numbers.
On St. Paul, during the season ending August 11, 1912, each skin was given a num-
bered tag, beginning with No. 1 and running consecutively to No. 2880, which last
number represented the total number of skins taken. Such skins as will be taken
on St. Paul hereafter will be numbered from 2881 consecutively until each of the
skins taken has been furnished with a tag. Through a misunderstanding of instruc-
tions by the assistant agent in charge on St. George Island only the skins taken on
that island during the regular killing season (July) were tagged. These were 446 in
number and received tag numbers G1 to G446, both inclusive.
MARKING, WEIGHING, AND MEASURING SEALSKINS.
The tags were attached to the skins after the latter had been brought to the salt
house. There the skins were placed on one of the outside platforms and about six
men engaged in the work of tagging them. This was done by tying the 18-inch loop
600 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
of string attached to the tag through one of the flipper holes. The tagged skins were
then carried into the salt house and placed on a large table, care being taken that the
skin should not come into contact with salt until after its green weight was taken.
On the table with the skins was a small pair of beam scales, with a scoop on one side
and counterpoise and loose iron weights on the other, and with a brass notched plate
in front, graduated to quarter ounces and provided with a movable poise. The scales
were manufactured by Fairbanks-Morse, and were calibrated with weights furnished
by the subtreasury in San Francisco. To facilitate weighing, each skin on the table
was folded up intoa compact bundle with its tag hanging outside. A series of sheets
of paper serially numbered also had been prepared.
In weighing, each skin was taken up from the table by one man who announced the
number on its tag to the man who was to record the weights. The skin was then laid
on the scoop and the scale carefully balanced by a third person, who announced the
weight of the skin. This weight as announced was written down on the serially num-
bered sheets in the space opposite the proper tag number. After this number was
recorded and checked back, the green skin was for the first time tossed aside upon
the loose salt. When all the skins in the killing had been weighed, they were salted
in kenches. After five days they were taken out of the kenches, examined on a table
for places defectively salted, and then more lightly salted outside the kenches in a
pile called the ‘‘book.”’
Under usual circumstances, the weight of the salted skin was not ascertained until
it was taken out of the book for bundling. In the case of over 200 skins, however, the
salt weights were ascertained immediately upon being taken out of the kench, and
likewise again when taken out of the book. A report on these latter skins, with the
data obtained from weighing them out of the kench, appears elsewhere.
In recording the salt weights the sheets previously used for recording the green
weights were again taken into the salt houses, and the salt weights inserted thereon
in the blank spaces left for that purpose opposite the serial number and the green
weight. At the time of taking the salt weights the salted skin was also measured for
greatest length along the median line of the back, and for greatest width across the
skin at the fore-flipper holes. These measurements were also recorded opposite the
serial number and the weights, so that each sheet contains a completed record of the
serial number, green and salt weight, and salt measurement of each skin recorded on
it. Copies of these completed sheets are on file at the Bureau of Fisheries.
In making these data, as before described, the greatest attention was paid to accu-
racy. Having only a few skins, there was time enough to weigh and measure each
skin carefully. To kill some 200 seals, however, and to weigh the skins in the manner
in which it was done last summer occupied the time from early morning until after
3 in the afternoon, a delay that will be impossible when the number of skins taken
becomes larger. It was thought, however, that if complete data regarding the changes
that might occur to skins through salting were gathered this year, it would establish
a principle, and would make it unnecessary to repeat the labor in subsequent years.
SPECIAL EXPERIMENTS IN MEASURING AND WEIGHING SEALSKINS.
In addition to comparing the weights of skins green and after salting, and ascertain-
ing their measurements in the salted state, efforts were made to obtain also as accurate
information as possible of the measurements of skins when green—i. e., before being
salted—with a view of determining what change, if any, occurs in the size of the skin
from the action of salt. To acquire this information it was necessary to measure the
animal before it was skinned, to measure the fur remaining on the animal after skin-
ning, to measure as accurately as possible the green skin itself, and, finally, to measure
the skin after it had been in salt.
It has been a much-mooted question whether green skins could not be measured
and thereby furnish a much better test of the age of the animal than the present method
of weighing the skin. By those familiar with the subject it has been contended that
the skin when green is so elastic and pliable that by the smallest pressure it can be
made to stretch inches; also that the tendency of the green skin is to retreat or curl
into itself, and merely to uncurl it requires pressure enough to stretch the skin in any
direction the pressure may be applied. To have actual experiments made in at-
temps to measure green skins was the only exact method known of determining the
question raised, and was the object of the work about to be detailed.
On July 9, 110 large 2-year-old seals were killed for this purpose and to furnish
food for the natives. The method employed was as follows:
The seals were first stunned by clubbing and laid inarow. One of the serially num-
bered leather tags already mentioned was then affixed to the hind flipper of each seal.
This remained until the skin was removed, when the tag was at once taken off the
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 601
flipper and tied to the skin in the flipper hole, from which place it was not thereafter
removed. This insured the identification of the skin with the weights and measure-
ments made before skinning. The length of each animal from tip of nose to root of
tail was then ascertained by means of a steel tape laid along the middle of the back.
The girth was next ascertained by drawing the tape around the animal just back of
the fore flippers. The weight of the entire animal was then ascertained, after which
it was bled to death.
When dead, the usual incisions were made preparatory to removing the skin from
the carcass, as follows: One incision along the belly from the jaw to the anus; an-
other, a circular incision, beginning at the jaw completely around the head and as
close to the eyes as possible; another circular incision beginning at the anus around
the posterior end of the body, completely denuding that portion of the body of fur
and leaving the entire tail appended to the skin, and also cuts around each fore flipper
near the elbow, just beyond the fur.
After the circular incision was made about the head, the length of the ‘‘mask,” as
is termed the fur remaining on the animal after it has been skinned, was ascertained.
This was done by laying a steel tape on the back of the head on the same line on which
the length of the animal was ascertained, and measuring the mask from the circular
incision to the tip of the nose. By these means were ascertained the length and width
of the pelt while on the animal, and the length of the area of the fur left on the animal
after the skin was removed. If no changes occurred in the size of the skin through
the operation of removing the pelt, or through salting, it would follow that the length
of the skin should equal the total length of the animal from tip of nose to root of tail,
aiter deducting the length of that portion of the skin left on the head by the skinners,
The width of the skin should equal the girth of the animal.
It should be recalled that the measurement of the animal was taken to root of the
tail, and that the root of the tail, as well as the tail itself, was removed with the skin,
In computing what should be the normal length of the skin after removal, therefore,
no deduction should be made on account of any supposed portion of the pelt left on the
posterior end of the animal, as no skin with fur on it remains on that portion of the
carcass after skinning.
After weighing the animals in the field and measuring them, as before stated, the
carcasses were skinned and the skins taken to the salt house. There each skin was
weighed and the weights so taken arranged serially according to the numbers borne
by the tags affixed to each skin. j
Before salting these skins, however, an effort was made to arrive at something ap-
proaching the true dimensions of these green skins. The proper method of cbtaining
these data, if any proper method existed, had been discussed previously by Messrs.
Marsh, George A. Clark, and Lembkey. Knowing the elastic and pliable nature of a
green sealskin, it was believed that no method could be devised of obtaining the di-
mensions of such a skin which would in any way compare consistently with the di-
mensions of the same skin after it was salted. On this point all were agreed. It was
hoped, however, that although the green and salt dimensions never could be corre-
lated satisfactorily, perhaps some method could be devised for measuring the green
skins, which, used upon all alike, might have some value. It was suggested that each
green skin be held up by its tail against a pole graduated with inches or centimeters,
until its other end barely touched the ground, and its length as shown recorded. The
skin, in this manner, would be stretched merely by its own weight, and the length
obtained be a fair, or at least a somewhat reliable, indication of its size and also its
age.
It was also suggested that the quantity of blubber on the skin would be a vital ele-
ment in using this method, and would influence the length greatly, without regard to
the age of the animal. For example, if two seals of exactly the same size were skinned,
one with only a small quantity of blubber on the skin and the other with a large quan-
tity of blubber, the heavily blubbered skin would be the longer when measured by
the method suggested, and therefore appear as the skin of a larger animal because the
weight of the blubber would stretch it farther. It was then suggested that a fair attempt
could be made to arrive at the size of a skin when in a green state by having the men
lay each green skin in the kench for salting, and in that state, just before salt was
thrown upon it, to measure the skin for length and breadth, without any further
attempt to straighten it out. This method seemed by far the most sensible in attempt-
ing to measure green skins, and it was tried.
Accordingly, before these skins were salted, but after each was laid in the kench by
the native workmen preparatory to having salt thrown upon it, it was measured by
laying a steel tape across its greatest length and width as it lay. The number on the
tag which each skin bore was noted also, and the measurements arranged in accord-
ance with these numbers. No instructions were given to the men as to how to lay the
602 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
skins in the kench previous to measuring them, except that.they should be laid as
ordinarily they would be laid for salting. No instructions whatever were given the
native men as to how the seals should be skinned, i. e., whether more or less blubber
should be left on the skin. :
These skins were then salted by having three shovelfuls of salt thrown upon each.
This is one more shovelful than would be thrown upon them were a large number to
be salted. On July 17, eight days after they were first salted, they were hauled out
of the kench, measured and weighed, and again salted, but more lightly, in the book.
On July 16, another 100 seals, approximately, were treated in exactly the same
manner as were those taken on July 9. On July 22, six days thereafter, they were
hauled out, weighed and measured again, and booked.
From these 210 skins interesting data were gathered. So far as the weights are con-
cerned, it is shown that without exception these skins lost weight in salt during periods
of eight and six days, respectively. Some lost as much as 10 per cent, some lost only
a fraction of 1 per cent; but without exception all lost weight. Moreover, the salted
weights of all skins taken during the summer, including the 210 specially mentioned
here, when contrasted with the green weights of the same skins, demonstrate the fact
that over 95 per cent thereof lost weight through salting.
As regards measurements, the data show that by the best methods that could be
devised it was not possible to measure a green skin within inches of its subsequent
dimensions after salting. It was found, furthermore, that the measuring of green
skins in the kench just before salting so delayed and confused the native workmen
that the time necessary to salt each 100 skins was increased more than one hour, while
numerous inaccuracies in salting were discovered afterwards, which undoubtedly
were due to the confusion incident to measuring, and which had they not been dis-
covered within a week would have seriously depreciated the value of the skins.
The table of measurements constructed from these operations is interesting in show-
ing that at no time after the pelt has been removed from the carcass does it assume
the dimensions it had while on the animal. While the time necessary to prove the
fact has not been afforded, it is believed that the skin on the live animal is in a state
of tension, varying in degree as the animal may be fat or lean—if fat, the tension is
ereater; if lean, the tension is less. A contraction of the skin seems to occur imme-
diately upon its removal from the animal; whether this is due to the releasing of the
natural tension of the skin, or whether there is an actual muscular contraction due
to the reflex of muscles which continued to contract for a short period after death, it
is not possible to say. It is certain, however, that as accurate a measurement of the
green skin as can be made shows that it is inches shorter and narrower than before
its removal from the body. The effect of salting was to increase in every instance
the size of the green skin as ascertained previous to salting. However, neither the
length nor the width of the salted skin equals that of thesame skinontheanimal. This
can be made more apparent by a scrutiny of the table of comparative sizes of green
and salted skins with the length and width of that skin on the animal.
On June 27, 10 skins were picked out at random from those lying on the pile with
only the hair side exposed, and were weighed just as they came from the field. After
this first weighing they were given to expert skinners with instructions to remove
carefully all blubber from each pelt. After the blubber was so removed the skins
were weighed again and salted. On August 1 and 7 they were again weighed. The
results of the weighing are here given in detail:
Weights of sealskins with and without blubber and before and after salting.
Serial number. | W capt s yi With no blubber. wuss Baas ras
| Pounds. | Ounces. | Pounds. | Ounces. | Pounds. | Ounces. | Pounds. | Ounces.
675 6 12 5 1.75 | 4 13.25 4 14.75
5 6 8 5 1.25 | 5 | 2.25 5 3.75
6 14.5 5 6.25 | 5 2.25 5 5.75
6 14.75 5 2.75 5 | 1.75 5 5.5
5 : 3 7.25 | 3 | 8.5 3 9
6 14.75 4 12.5 4 11.25 4 12.5
7 1.75 5 4.5 DM Briscioc see 5 1
6 13.25 4 12.75 4 8 4 12
6 15.5 + 13.75 5 -5 4 15.25
5 | 6.75 3 14.75 1 2.5 4 3.25
65 9.25 47 13.5 47 2.25 48 2.75
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 608
This isan interesting experiment on the effect of salt upon skins from which all blub-
ber was removed before salting. These skins when salted green, however, were dry,
i. e., carried no moisture other than the animal juices, whereas after salting they were
dripping wet from the water in the bottom of the kench where they had been salted.
The result, nevertheless, would indicate that the greatest loss in weight through salt-
ing occurs from the blubber adhering to the skins, and not from the skins themselves,
The net results of all these experiments is to show conclusively that sealskins do
not gain weight in salt, but on the contrary lose weight through the action of the salt
on them. Were it possible to have all skins taken off the carcass with a uniform
thickness of blubber adhering, to have them at the time of salting each carry the
same amount of moisture, and to have each absorb the same amount of moisture
while in salt, it is certain that each skin would show the same percentage of loss in
weight through salting. It is impossible, however, to have these conditions uniform,
Tf the day be dry, the fur on the skin will be dry, and will be salted without moisture
other than that furnished by the natural animal juices in the pelt. If the seals on
such a day are ‘“‘dipped” in a pond before killing, as often occurs, or if rain be falling
at the time of killing, the skins will reach the salt house with varying quantities of
moisture and be salted in such condition. When afterwards the skins are weighed
out of salt, the differing amounts of moisture in them undoubtedly will affect accord-
ingly the percentage of loss in weight.
It must be understood, also, that moisture, both from that carried in the fur, if the
fur be wet when salted, and that extracted from the pelt itself by the action of the
salt, is expressed from the skinsin salt by the pressure of the skins above when salted in
the kench and when in the pile knownasthe book. Water always is found on the floors
of kenches, and those skins at the bottom are immersed in it. Likewise, there is
always seepage from the book of liquid from the upper skins which saturates those
skins salted below them. When these wet skins are weighed out of salt they must of
necessity weigh more, because of the presence of this moisture, than those from which
the moisture has been extracted, thereby causing a variation in the percentage of loss
in weight through salting.
It must be remembered, furthermore, that probably no two skinners skin seals
alike. Some skinners unknowingly leave more blubber on than do others. Some
leave a uniformly thin layer of blubber over the entire skin, and others, because of a
relative lack of skill, will leave irregular patches of blubber of varying thickness,
Others, because of an eccentric manner of holding the skinning knife, will shave the
skin closely with the point, but will leave the blubber much thicker toward the hait,
If the skin carries blubber of equal thickness over its whole surface, necessarily the
action of the salt will be uniform over the entire skin. If, on the other hand, the
skin contains blubber in areas of uneven thickness, or if it carries blubber on some
portions and no blubber on other portions, the action of the salt will be unequal in
pat, because salt can not penetrate a thick mass of blubber as quickly as a thin
yer.
So also, new salt, which contains many fine particles as well as the coarse grains,
will act more quickly and effectively upon skins than will old salt. The smaller
particles in the new more readily dissolve and form solution; besides, the old salt has
ecome more or less coated with grease from previous contact with skins; the smaller
particles have been dissolved for the same reason, leaving only the larger grains,
which dissolve less readily. These, and perhaps all other elements, operate to change
or vary the percentage of loss of weight from sealskins through salting. That these
skins almost invariably do show a loss of weight through the action of salt on them
is remarkable in view of the many factors which operate to influence the weight,
li a test must be applied by which the work of killing seals on the islands is to be
checked, that test should be by weighing the skins as heretofore, and not by measure
ing the skins, as his been suggested. The test of weight can be applied immediately
aiter the animal has been killed and skinned, and thereby a close connection can be
kept in the minds of the workmen between the size of the animals taken and the
weights of their skins. On the other hand, it has been shown that no test of the size
of the skins which is worthy of consideration can be taken until at least five days
after the animals have been driven, slaughtered, and skinned. If the killing gang
must wait five days before knowing whether the seals taken on any date are taken
conformably to regulations, or the contrary, it is submitted that the information,
when finally obtained, will lose much of its value.
These tests are useful, not so much in instructing the sealers as to their duties, but
in convincing others that the work of the sealers is in conformity with regulations,
Assume, for example, that the regulations prescribe the killing of 2-year-olds only,
It is obvious that whatever test is prescribed, whether by the weight or size of skins,
604 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
can not be applied until after the animal has been kilied and skinned, when it is too
late to rectify any mistakes with regard to their taking. The clubber must first kill
the seals before he can either weigh or measure their skins, and in selecting them for
killing he must depend solely upon his judgment and his experience. He must be
able to tell accurately the ages of the seals coming before him, and he must, in advance
of weighing, guess the weight of a skin on a live seal to within a few ounces. So far
as is known, there is no method whereby to determine mathematically the age of a
seal, or the size and weight of its skin previous to the death of the animal. Any
method, therefore, can not be an aid to the seal killer except in so far as he may by it
be able to verify the accuracy of his work after it has been done.
The various weights and measurements of seals and sealskins taken during the
summer are appended.
Comparison of green and salt weights of sealskins taken on St. Paul Island in July, 1912.
IN SALT JULY 9 TO 16, INCLUSIVE.
Green weight.| Salt weight. Decrease. Green weight.) Salt weight. Decrease,
Serial Serial
0. No.
JBOSS ORS AER) OLS Oz \eRenct: Lbs.| Oz. | Lbs.| Oz. Oz. | Per ct.
26 5 0. 25 4 10.5 5.75 7 81 5 8.5 5 1.25515 7..25 8.1
27 4 2 3 14. 25 | 3.75 5.6 82 5 0 4 13.25 | 2075 3.4
28 5 15.5 5 8.5 6 | 6 83 5 10. 25 i 4.75 | 5.5 6.1
29 6 2.25 510: 2578 } 8 84 5 12.75 5 5.5 7.25 7.8
80 5 5 4 | 15.25 | 5.75 | 6.7 | 85 5 9. 75 5 §.25.| 4.5 5
bl 6 7. 75 6 22D Daw 5 86 5 12. 75 5 6.75 | 6 6.4
82 5 12. 25 5| 4.75 | 7.5 tel eal 87 5 6 5 SAN pts 1 6.6
33 6 1. 25 5 7.75 19.5 9.7 88 5 14. 25 5 8.25 | 6 6.3
34 5 2 4 1355 4.5 5 | 89 6 6.75 6 nt) 6. 25 6
85 5 0 4 10.5 5.5 (iat 90 | 6 10. 25 6 3.75 | 6.5 6.1
86 4 14.5 4 8.2) | Ds20ul 6.6 | 91 6 2.5 6 14.75 | 3.75 4.5
387 5 2.75 4 125) 622544 7.5 | 92 6 13. 75 6 ape Os25 5.6
38 5 12, 25 Sled 5. 25 5. 6 | 93 | 6 6.75 5 15 7.75 15
39 4 11. 75 | Al. 8225) | oom 4.6 | 94 4 6 4 2.5 3.5 5
40 5 fey kaye) 5 0 Touro 8.8 || 95 | 6 | 5. 25 5 13 8.25 8.1
41 6 10 6 [T3525 6.575 6.7 | 96 ria) ale 5 u 8 8.4
42 5 6. 75 | Sule pad 3. 25 3.0 II 97 7 14. 75 7 Dab) | POko 7.4
43 6 1.5 Ea) as iy ol Oly aly 7.9 |i 98 | {i~| re BS 6 15. 25 |} 8.5 7
44 6 ton 5 yey bey) 7.7 |} 99 Glee TONS ES sere ee 4.5 5,5 5.1
45 6 2. 25 5} 13.25] 5 5 100 | Gah 82575 6 975) 3 2.7
46 5 5.25 5} 1.75 | 3.5 4 101 6] 3.5 5 10. 25 | 9. 25 9,2
47 4 8.5 4 3.75°| 4.75 6.5 102 7 5.5 6 14.75 | 4.75 4
48 4 14 | 4 11.5 2.5 3 103 6; 15 6 10.75 | 4.25 3.8
49 5 10. 25 |} Of) 1.25 9 9.9 104 6} 12.5 6 8 4.5 4.1
50 5 os Dwit Sols ef D B54 6 105 6 | 125 5 14.75 | 2.5 2.5
61 5 14, 25 | 5 8.5 D. 2D | 6 106 7 PAT EN 6 14.25 | 4.5 3.9
62 | 6 ahi) Dale LOMio) eaatp 8.7 107 6 4.25 6 > 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 <t ke) let e Le come, teme Cel ote Ke elit ee into Wel Selves vecietita
Oz.
elite) uw ie) wD am igad 109 wus
a erie y leisy tee Je. <del ~~ ipenpeyte mate Mey eiey ite awe, Mepe > 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.) <A yearling cow shot
Skin taken for Stanford
p. 58, and copied, July 24, 1913, by A. F. Gallagher.)
And there they are to-day, male and female yearlings, in the
Biological Museum of Stanford University, denying the statement
that George A. Clark made here, under oath February 20-21, last.
Mr. SrepHENs. Are they living animals?
Mr. Eixiorr. No; they are stuffed. They were alive when they
were killed, and when Jordan and Clark’s men went and got them.
But, Lembkey, with 13 years’ experience, reports that the females
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 ascertain the weight
of the skin. It wasfound to be a female.
Special attention was paid by me to the presence of yearlings in the drives,
first seen was on June 28 in a drive from Zapadnie.
a er!) ey
to determine its weight. It was a male.
The
It was so small that it was killed
(Rept. W. I. Lembkey, Sept. 1,
1904, p. 77, App. A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.)
THE DEADLY PARALLEL.
(Sworn statement Feb. 21,
1914.) Clark swears that his
branding pups less than 2 months
old, September 3, 1912, on top
of their heads with red-hot irons,
‘has proved his case—that they
did not come back in July, 1913,
on to the hauling grounds.
Mr. McGuire. What light has this
branding thrown upon your report for
1909, if any? ;
Mr. CrarK. It has cleared up my
doubts at that time. I saw a condition
in 1909 where practically every small
seal was killed, and the question was
whether the yearlings came to the haul-
ing grounds or not.
But Joseph Murray (and David
Starr Jordan) officially reports
that on September 1-10, 1896, he
branded 315 female pups and 2
cows on Lukannon and Keetavie
rookeries, and in i897 these
female pups returned and were
seen on the hauling grounds as
‘‘vearlings.”’ (See p. 62, Treas-
ury Doc. No. 1913, 1896.)
' 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, as wellas that of the yearlings, shows
clearly, etc.
1 That drive “from Lukannon” was made on July 27, 1896, from which those yearling male and female
E.
seals were secured, as above entered.—H. W.
726 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
_Mr. McGutre. That had been the ques- Fur Seal Investigations, part 3,
tion prior to that time? page 337, 1898
Mr. Crark. Yes. Y i
Mr. McGurre. If they came, then the Mr. Clark’s notes (p. 339): The drive
situation of 1909 was a serious one with from Lukannon showed a marked excess
respect to that. If the yearlingscameto of yearlings. In the earlier drives these
the grounds they must have been killed, yearlings do not appear, and in the later
because there was no considerable num- drives Lukannon sends in an overwhelm-
ber left not killed. The effect of the ing majority of them. (George A. Clark,
branding demonstrated that the yearlings July 25, 1896, p. 340, Fur Seal Investiga-
did not come to the hauling grounds, tions, part 2, 1898.)
and therefore they were necesrarily not
killed in 1909, and the animals that were
killed were the 2-year-olds or above that
age.
Clark swears February 21, 1914, that the only yearling seal ever
identified by any one up to August 8, 1913, is the one he captured
July 24, 1913, that day on the Reef Rookery, St. Paul Island.
Mr. McGurre. 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.
Mr. McGurre. Do you remember its measurements?
Mr. Ciarxk. This one I caught in 1913, this branded animal, of which we are abso-
lutely certain, its length was 36} inches.
They knew what yearlings were, because they had branded pups in
1896: when he reported in 1897 they were there—he knew it, because he
saw them. But we are told here, by a man who ecal!s himself a
“scientist,” that this was an original “ expervment”’ of his own to deter-
mine the return of yearlings by branding! Six thousand pups were
branded on the tops of their gelatinous heads in 1912. e will find
out about all that when we come to it.
The Bureau of Fisheries submits the sworn proof, April 24, 1912,
that Clark has made an untruthful statement in re yearling seal. It
weighed a live yearling seal (pup of 1909) all through 1910. These
weights agree exactly with Elliott’s standard, officially published
\S—
June, 1875.
Dr. EvERMANN. The bureau has obtained at various times certain reliable data
regarding the weights of seals, and I desire to put them on record in this connection.
In the fall of 1909 two fur-seal pups (male and female) were brought to the Bureau
of Fisheries in Washington from St. Paul Island. Those two seals are still living,
and in excellent condition. They have been weighed on the 20th of every month
since they were received here in Washington. The following table shows the weight
of each at each weighing:
Date. | Male. | Female. Date. Male. Female,
1910 | Pounds. | Pounds. 1911—Continued. | Pounds. | Pounds,
1 ET Ry) SR ee ee ee 28 19.5 Mar. 20. Sonsic cca ae eee eee 46 30
RB DAO sae ee ee Cee 35. 25 PASTS |\\ Apr. 20)... eeeee eee epee eee 45.5 31.5
Mars ee oS oe ees ba i | 32.5 25 i) May 20). :\- 4. sc=.02'-pemeepeeneee 50.5 32
AE co cee en soe 37 24 || Sune 20> /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 <a. - ee IS. ieee eee 50
Rejections:
Wpiandi2is so) te Asset oo. BS a ee ee ee eee 119
AIRE: Ct Stel bigs epael. | skye Sod cel Sa eee aa | i het od Oe ta ee re 18
Dice ee ee eer noe ae nce ee Se DORE RY Mee Smee pee A 1
QyBee erect ao Piel le Seen ee eee a clay rn pe Sl ae Se re 9
Bree 5 PRES SPORE RT Sea ee Nae Nake tate ee od tare tata, Sia et TOTO eee 2
Motalidrivendoss-ifysss eesti oe See a eee eS eee 210
[Page 240.]
JULY 5.
Zapadine —A drive was made from this rookery for marking the breeding reserve
of males with the following results:
Marked ((S-yearrolds) =" 20. (Or... 2.2 9. 0002 02 seen se JE oe ee 93
Released:
Land 2: wean olde. ected ce sods dee pcs nese -neels oe 299
A-vest-Olds- 2. oar) soe ee ASS cen baie nk Se doo See 25
D-Wear-OlGSet ec. Sas ee eee ee aes obo s nc ene un ete es oe pe Ee 10
G-year-olds...c< <6 tatters aces Se seid ste ese 250s she eee eee 5
7-Yeat-Old8 22005 one oS eae Ree Ae se pheisid) asin 2s 2p Ree eee eee i
ee lsh eo. ae ee ee mene 433
1 Hon. Champ Clark, Mo.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 1735
There is a remarkable scarcity of 3-year-olds and a still more remarkable scarcity
of 4 and 5 year olds.
[Page 244.]
JULY 8.
Leaving Mr. Marsh to make the record at the branding * * *.
Marjorie —The results of the branding this morning were as follows:
MEAERCUT SI CAT-OLs. sh = Sera eee eis Hace e Te Lee cyte melon em ene eae at aoa ave 165
Rejections:
MANNE A Sepa te cn le ages Scales are ayy 2 ee EC Ney ake ras See chanel crass Oey Ret a 393
35 TEETER SS ee EEC EN cn ay SN AU | 24
SUELO Sars Sapir Matas oe aes ee cet eens ae serail 6
(PEN ERTL ISAs Oe Oe Catrall eA EO SUeual ay nS ER A pea yea SL Ap 4
“TEOyPDLNGG Wis RETO SR See ene ee ets ess ae Ea ar SS pee RAE 592
JULY 9.
Reef—A second drive for the breeding reserve was made from reef this morning
with the following results:
LEGITEDEN? [OMEN NG IS ss, eh (ee dey ese an as SOIR, We BEE aera rant Aa a SRN GIR Cath 200
Mewebrands ses 5224 betta ly te A the ear aden ciao LAR Oe A Tea 251
Released:
WEARS. he cto tin sisi iodo Noi ea alate ya) ane, oe hehe Sa OR IIe CRE ARG 1,315
4-year-olds........- PO Seo ehs Sia oa he) ye Mee ye me ep Sepa 23
FAIOTERT GS So Se ao BS ee ear Seeae ate peices Le Nia oe Ll A eh 1s
FETE OLG SS a a ee I Gs ry cs Retr cnen IEE eer |S MASE Fea ai nS UN ay 10
T/A) (6 [5 eas re eae le pene ra es 6 ca he TS ae SN NS aie sat OE 2,
TUPUEDL: GRIN ESC ie ete gee ey eg REN tr eT a Oa A 1, 818
[Page 250.]
Juy 11.
Zapadine.—A second drive from this rookery for the breeding reserve this morning
gave the following:
Miewe-weat-Oldsibrang ed 22-4. dds tronics te ee ecb aos HRS oi rye Bee 62
IO EMEEEDTATL CS NOLO Git slam si aie ere er ee Se Ne eee are ac le ak aa 47
Released animals:
Te RO ee ae Sie ert east s Ana MLE ARRAN Nat 4 BMD CARS SAN a 320
GEG ses Ail ee data NT el ast lea GE Ahan Sey OR ROM URN TT Se 2 PSP 0108 AR ih he ac aad I oa 6
EE 2 Rte piri 20 Ge 33 AE VO a ERE soe Oicies irs OAR Wea rece San SPMD yn Koni NAR TAMRON NTRNOA 2
BASLE OB, & hy ae ae RN ie eM IES ROE Ua ae SL Va is (5 SNM TNY ENEMA GUNN a 1
TD Bs pS Re ce SRR ma ete AS IN SS unc a dit el Blais gy oh ern SHAM EGR DESMA 1
Motalrdriv erred ese a Pe ays 3 ee ay Ne esa ee aa PN si AU LAm 439
[Page 257.]
Juty 15.
The following result of the drive this morning for the breeding reserve:
SE OTEET EST ROT AIT CL Seay eope peg peep ht el an ne le ep ea Se ae heey Fan VO eam LIN hay 88
ING WADT AT OS=-) eee eek a en Seta ee PON TERE EE eA Bia Wanaka eae! 215
Not branded:
Tsien aya | ASE this See Mm ee PUN Sae Vad ERM Cou Uy Any et AT geet eet a aeUe w Onee cet aR 2S GeetE RIS 760
VE Re ep REN ES eee VE oe A Sane REE = Urvin ik a Neh p Mad sere Ma ai mark ys 15
LFS eal ee oy Se SI ap Sa oh 2 a Me RR tues eS od chk Ds eka AIL ACN CaM cpm MRICS SUR RMER ACE 8
OS ee en een rater nm Seiwa Ne TMS Ba YZ E Mh gg SEN a Crk ep 2
MEI UIVEN 022 2 52.0 2's c ecneicie ee aie ye eee rete ne area ere PEN ae dae ah 1, 088
* * * An animal appeared in this drive with a single burnt mark across the
neck just back of the ears. It is thought to be an animal marked on St. George,
and that a hot iron instead of sheep’s shears was used in making the mark,
Mr. McGurre. What year?
Mr. Extiotr. This is 1912.
Mr. Stepuens. All of that is 1912?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; this is right in sequence.
736 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
[Page 259.]
Jury 16.
Reef.—A third drive for branding is made from the reef and Gorbatch. For the
first time this season bachelors have been found on the cinder slope of the latter
rookery. It aggregated about 2,200 animals and was by far the largest drive of the
season. The quota for the breeding reserve in St. Paul is 1,600, and 300 remain
to be marked. These were obtained - through the handling of 919 animals, the results
being as follows:
OG ra Gs ya so By ar RN ocho ene ae as Da SA UP ay 54
NFS ry rad sles oo cc oo oe ese sea ee os gs MS ce 301
Rejections:
DP Sa WDHB eis ais) sk ey Ad Ra SY SS RS Sy SSN RIS BN 550
AVIS bic (Ae lavm ares oct Sette hes EL RS Lats crete SS SERED OAL SRE re TE 7
DUBS Se Nes cy sy hen ih eck STL ay Saas PISS SSS SES FSIS A a St oe 5
TEASE aed a ep aca eRe anh once ores PA aie NC aN ONT eden Sh aM E RE UA ne 2
ol Na) icc) pe Ra tiers earn gen ARO aie ter ebites ware Le eo NTMI AR aia So a 919
Here is the exhibition of the separation of 3-year-olds from “‘ 1 and
2 year olds”’ carried out all the way through these records as above.
Why have the “‘ 1-year-olds” not been separated in the count?
Why has the separation of the 2-year-olds been. clearly made from
the 3-year-olds when those classes are the most difficult of all to
separate ¢
fr. Parton. Who is that from ?
Mr. Exxrorr. This is mine. I have got it all properly quoted.
Mr. StrerHEeNS. What do you mean by rejections ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Those turned away, you know; they were too small.
He was “shearing”’ 3-year-olds on the tops of their heads.
Think a moment of this shallow trick thus employed by a “scien-
tist”’ to attempt to conceal the fact that a majority of the seals
driven up in 1912 from the hauling grounds between July 3 and July
16 were yearlings!
Mr. Parron. Does he say that?
Mr. Extiorr. I say that.
They were yearlings because they could not by an sophism be
called 2-year-olds, smce the nativ es had made the selection surely
and well; but Clark kept the records, and has jumbled the numbers of
the 1-year-olds with the 2-year-olds, so as to deceive and confuse the
reader.
Mr. Parron. Why did he not separate the 1-year-olds ?
ag Exuiorr. The natives did it from the 2-year-olds and 3-year-
olds
Mr. Patron. Was he not only after the 3-year-olds ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Then why itemize these other classes and con-
stantly jumble together the 1-year-olds and the 2-year-olds ?
Mr. Parron. I do not think it was necessary to separate them
when he only wanted the others.
Mr. Exxiorr. Then why does he separate them and speak of all the
others except the yearlings ?
The CuarrMaAn. Just answer the question of the Congressman.
Mr. Exxrorr. I did; I answered him. If I am itemizing the
rejections as he did, why jumble together the 1 and 2 year olds?
The Carman. Just answer his question. It seems to me you
were talking at the same time he was asking his question.
Mr. Exuiorr. W ell, I have answered it.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 737
On June 14, 1913, Mr. George A. Clark was instructed to capture,
kill, measure, and weigh a series of such ‘“‘survivals of the branding
of 1912” as he might find in 1913, as yearlings, on the Pribilof hauling
erounds, as might be necessary to ‘“‘obtain a mean or typical index to
the yearling seals male and female.’”’ (See letter of departmental
instructions, June 14, 1913, item “‘ (5) Ages of the seals.”
Did Mr. Clark do-so? No. He not only did not make this record,
but he actually went under oath February 20-24, 1914, and swore to
the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce, that up to July 24, 1913, he had not seen a single one of the
branded seals of 1912—not one—from July 10, when he first arrived
at the islands, till the date of July 24.
Was he telling this committee the truth? If he was, then he has
_not reported the truth to the Bureau of Fisheries under date of
August 24, 1913.
We find in his manuscript report to the bureau that he describes on
page 65, under date of July 10, and the first day of his arrival on the
* islands, the appearance that day to him, on the north rookery of St.
George Island, of one of the 1912 branded seals, which was a yearling
of his own identification.
Did he make any attempt to secure it, measure and weigh it, and
establish by so doing ‘‘a mean or typical index to the yearling seal,”
etc., as he was instructed to do? No.
Next we find on page 68, under date of July 14, that he describes
the appearance of another one of his branded yearling seals (pup of
1912) on St. Pauls Island at Zapadnie; does he attempt to secure it,
to weigh, measure, and by so doing obey his instructions? No.
Next we find on July 18, page 76, that he has again noted the ap-
pearance of a yearling seal of his pup branding in 1912, on Garbotch
Rookery. Does he secure it? No.
Next we find on page 79, July 20, that he has again seen a ‘‘ branded
bachelor” at Zapadnie Rookery, St. Pauls Island; does he attempt to
secure it and record its weight, measurement, etc.? No.
Finally, on page 8@ under date of July 24, he actually observes a
branded yearling on the Reef Rookery, which was one of the pups
that he had burned on the head here, in September, 1912, and he
captures it; he only makes a single measurement of its length from
tip of nose to root of tail (364 inches), and lets it go! He has this to
say: ‘‘In the case of the five yearlings handled to-day all were males.’
Why did he make no measurements, record no weights of body, of
skin, etc., of these yearlings, all of them, as he was instructed to do
June 24, 1913?
Why did he fail to do this? He was more fully authorized in 1913
to take, kill, and measure and weigh those yearling seals than Elliott
was in 1872-73 to do so. Elliott had no such instructions. But
he took 25 or 30 yearling seals, nevertheless, killed, weighed, and
measured them, in 1872-73, between July 10-20, on St. Paul, and
July 24 on St. George; and his official record of those yearling weights
and measurements was duly published nearly 40 years ago (1. e. June,
1875) by the United States Treasury Department (see Condition of
Affairs in Alaska, etc., p. 150, 1875). Who has disputed them
sensibly, or who does to-day ?
In 1913, Elliott records the same appearance of yearlings on the
Pribilof Islands during July that he has recorded way back in 1872-
53490—14—_47
738 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
1874; the same ‘‘small seals” from 33 to 46 pounds in weight and
from 34 to 41 inches in length; the same yearlings of 1872 were under
his eyes in 1913, July 9 to 31, which Clark also saw at the same time,
last summer, with Elliott.
_ Clark never disputed the appearance of yearlings to Mr. Elliott’s
face on the islands, last summer; he did try to get Elliott to argue
over the relative number of yearlings that were hauled out as com-
pared with the 2, 3, and 4 year olds. Elliott declined to argue over
that question.
I was not sent up to argue with anybody. I was sent up to get
these facts and bring them here, and if there is any argument with
Mr. Clark, this committee must argue with him; not I.
Now, why did Clark fail to make a record of the sizes and weights
of these yearling seals for his own identification and as he was
‘“nstructed”’ to do ?
He had abundant time; he had unlimited assistance, if he required
help; they why did he fail to make that record of those yearling seals
as Ae was instructed to do ?
There is good reason; if he had done so, he would simply have con-
firmed the Elliott table of yearling weights and measurements made
in 1872-1874, and duly published ever since 1875.
The truth in regard to Mr. Clark and his ‘‘expert”’ errands of 1912
and 1913 to the Seal Islands is simply this: He went up to the islands
with the plan of laying some foundation for the ‘‘discovery” of the
“fact” that the yearling seals do not haul out on the islands during
the months of June and July, and as the commercial (or lessees) killin
season has always ended annually by July 31, yearling seals coul
not have been killed and were not killed, as charged.
Mr. Elhott’s unexpected appearance last July on the islands put
a quietus to that trick of ‘‘scientific”’ denial of the hauling of yearlings
in June and July. The game could not be played with a lone hand,
as was planned in 1912.
Now, gentlemen, we will come to the ‘‘count” of pups. That will
be very short; it will not take long to uncoveythe untruth of that.
I will do that right from his own records.
Proof of the untruth of “accurate live pup counts,” which Geo. A.
Clark claims to have made in 1912 and 1913.
I do not think it necessary to dwell upon the untruth of Mr. Clark’s
claim to have made an ‘‘accurate count of all the live pups” on the
Pribilof rookeries during the seasons of 1912 and 1913.
If he did make an accurate count of all the live pups on St. George
Island in 1912 (where the counting has been easiest to attempt),
then he made an incorrect count of them in 1913, for his figures of
1912 showed 11,949 pups there, and in 1913 he again “‘counts”’
them and there are only 12,811—an increase which is microscopic;
in fact, no increase at all. (See p. 14, Clark’s Rept., 1913.)
Those seals must have increased on those St. George rookeries
between August 1, 1912, when he counted 11,949 cows alive and busy,
up to that date, by at least 18 per cent in 1913; yet this ‘‘accurate
pup count” of Clark in 1913 denies any notable increase there at all.
The whole business of ‘‘accurate live pup counting” is a farce;
and, not only that, but it is a positive injury to the herd in its con-
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 739
duct. The sham and nonsense of it has been fully exposed to view
in countless entries in the official journals of the islands, and it ought
to be prohibited from any repetition hereafter.
Mr. Parron. What is his count for 1913 ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Twelve thousand eight hundred and eleven. I read
it here.
Mr. Parron. What was his count for 1912?
Mr. Exxiorr. Eleven thousand nine hundred and forty-nine.
Mr. Patron. Is not that an increase ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Less than 1,000. That is a microscopic increase, as
I said before. That is not a legitimate increase; that is not a fair
increase.
Mr. Patron. It is about 10 per cent ?
Mr. Exxriorr. They do better than that; 18 per cent is the idea I
have.
Mr. McGutre. Mr. Clark says about 12 per cent.
The following analysis of Clark’s 1912-13 live pup count is taken
from his report of 1913, pages 14,15. When he found his 1912 figures
were not sensibly increased on St. George by his work on the rookeries
there in 1913, and duly witnessed by Messrs. Hatton, and Proctor, he
rushed over to St. Paul and run the pups up there by ‘‘counting”’
them so as to show a ‘“‘net increase of 13 per cent” over his 1912
figures.
Of course, he had no idea of the Elliott totals at the time, and did
not have any idea that Elliott would show an increase of at least
25 per cent for the St. George herd in 1913, assuming that Clark’s
figures for 1912 were correct.
The following analysis exhibits this fact, to wit:
Estimates made of number of fur-seal pups born, season of 1918.
Geo. A. Clark. Elliott.
Rookeries. | Remarks.
1912 1913 1913
St. George Island: |
AP AGBIS = oh store szaitiee Scio 1, 246 1, 408 | 2,250 | Clark made St. George pup
IMOTtRe os: 22s a ss eee: 4, 227 4,319 6, 200 “count” July 31-Aug. 2, 1913.
PitileiWast-- 522 8-225-525-0555 26 25 27
PRTAS BER POle sna cite teeter sista eee 536 444 3 500 Elliott made his pup estimate
Blasi Clifiss ss eee ene 2, 307 2, 837 f 2 July 18, 1918, on St. George.
SLALDYPATUCEL YS. ase ci einesine 3, 607 3,778 4,200 | Clark saw his figures of 1912 were
- not increased, so he goes to St.
Ropals 32 eae: as Fa: 11,949 12,811 16,177 Paul and runs them up.
St. Paul Island:
Sievitchie Kammen.........-. 2,787 3, 495 2,520 | Clark made St. Paul pup
MGROVIC? [25-8 Se See cee nooe 1,975 1,855 |) 3, 399 “eount” Aug. 3-8, 1913.
MRANNOM |= Foss 5 ays sae 1,787 1,661 |f Oey
Ardiguen. ccf Pa | Sate | 13,500 {Blige made his pup estimate
TEA a Satire Spenser ae 13,014 13,984 July 10-20, 1913, on St. Paul.
HAWAGIIS 2 cee en eee 7, 364 7,953 4, 850
Mitte Zapadni: 2222. 2 25.25, 4, 436 4, 596 \ 4.100
ZApAdn HeCis =. c-2esccne oc 186 197 ,
ACCOM Erie. sete aaanoeee, ( 5 a pai 500
- 680
Polavina.......-----.-------- 1083 1, 320 \ 7, 000
Little-Polavina:-.=5.- 52022222: s 841 1, 050 980
f 400 2,812 |)
Novashstoshnah.............. f 14,979 19) 459 |f 15, 622
: f 6,960 7, 313
EG lstole tre sess) Messe: (aid 2 713 \ 7, 850
OUA ee sop cae a eea ee a sai e = 70, 035 79, 458 63, 241
Grad tOtalie! ::- oe eee 81,984 92, 269 79, 418
740 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The Jordan-Clark census, 1897, 1909, 1912, the self-confessed
errors of it:
1897: 129,216 cows. (See p. 15, Treas. Doc. 1994.)
1909: 50,626 cows. (See p. 895, Science, Dec. 27, 1912.)
1911: 39,400 cows. (See p. 367, hearing No. 9; Lembkey.)
1912: 81,984 cows. (See p. 896, Science, Dec. 27, 1912.)
The killing on the islands up to August 1, 1911, took 12,002 seals,
and the pelagic sealing fleet, busy up to December 15, 1911, took
13,500 seals, or 25,000 seals from the total officially reported August 1,
ili
How did these cow seals actually increase with that land killing
up to August 1, 1911, of 12,002 seals, and the catch of the pelagic
fleet up to December 15, 1911, of 13,000 chiefly taken from 39,400
cow seals August 1, 1911, so by August, 1912, they had actually
doubled in Jess than 7 months after December 15, 1911?
Is it not true that the 1897 and the 1909 census was way below the
real number of cows that then were in existence ?
Does not that prove, when I went up there last year and found 80,000
cows, that these censuses preceding that time were absurd, just as i
had charged the Bureau of Fisheries with making a fictitious census
April 24, 1912 (pp. 605-606, hearing No. 10)? And this proved it.
If it were accurate, then how could those 50,626 cows actually
increase, year by year, up to 81,984, with the uninterrupted killing
by a fleet of 30 sealing schooners busy on them from August 1, 1909,
to December 15, 1911?
Further comment is unnecessary. Now, I want to say a word about
the physical difficulty of pup counting. I am going to give you facts
from my own personal observations. In 1872, while watching the
“nodding of the pups,’ between the Ist and 10th of August, back of
the sand dunes of Tolstoi Sands, St. Paul Island, I saw them
ee into groups, or ‘“‘pods” there, of tens of thousands. It
ecame interesting and a subject of inquiry for me to find out about
how many were in certain “pods,’’ that looked to contain anywhere
from 5,000 to 10,000. It was a subject that aroused a great deal of
interest and speculation, because the white men who were helpin
me there, on the islands, in getting up this table of my fur-sea
weights and measurements then, insisted that we could not drive
those pups so as to count them as we did the yearlings and killable
seals from the hauling grounds up to the killing grounds. Then I
insisted on having a trial made of it. They all laughed, but good-
naturedly went at it with me. We had 12 or 13 natives, and Dr.
Kapus, Mr. Church, and Mr. Webster stood by. We started on a
“‘nod”’ that we estimated contained perhaps five or six thousand
pups, although some of the men said there were ten thousand black
pups. We worked over that pod for hours and never got them to
run like sheep through a gate. We would have to walk back from
them until we were, well, as far as that curb over there in the street,
before they would move out of the mass. Then they would start to
run, 2, 3, 4, 50, or 60 in a bunch, and then if we moved up they would
g0 right back again to the mass. There was no driving them. If you
id you would smother them; they would crowd upon one another,
climb upon one another, and the lower ones would be smothered.
Then I saw there was no use of attempting to drive any great mass
of pups. It was perfectly evident that to count them in that way
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 741
was Impossible. If you had a little gathering of, peas 100 or 200
in such a place, you could step back and they would start—one would
start out, then another, and so on. If you were patient and would
wait, they would start out and you could count them.
Mr. StePpHENS. What was the age of those pups?
Mr. Extiorr. Oh, they were about 6 weeks or 2 months old.
Mr. Patron. How many seals were on the islands then ?
Mr. Exxrort. When I was there then ?
Mr. Patron. Yes.
Mr. Exxiorr. In those days there were over a million pups on all
the rookeries; of all classes there were at least 4,700,000.
Mr. Patron. About 10 or 12 times as many as there are now ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; 20 times times as many.
Mr. Patron. And that made quite a difference in the counting ?
Mr. ExxtiotT. Oh, yes. Now, I want to come back to the point.
You are talking about the “‘difference in counting.”’ Now, there are
physical features, Mr. Chairman, on the rookeries, natural features
through the lay of the land, that make it not only difficult but impos-
sible to drive and to count them, that is, where these pups are gath-
ered to-day as the rookeries have shrunken right down to the edge
of the sea, and where they lay in pockets between huge rough bowlders
and deep crevices and up above them high shelves. You can not get
down in among them and drive them up; you can not by any possi-
bility get them to move; you have got to haul them out from the
rocks and crevices and stand right over them and count them as they
are huddled upin masses. And it at once becomes an “estimate,” not
an “‘accurate count’’ of every seal. I have never contended that a
man could not go in that way and estimate the number of pups: but
no living man ever ‘‘accurately counted”’ the pups, all of them, on
those islands, and no man can do it.
You can get them to move in certain places, as I have said: but you
can not move them in all the places to-day, any more than you could
when I was there away back in 1872, because the physical difficulties
are there just the same. The structure of the shore and the lay of
the rocks is such that you can not get them up to move in any direc-
tion. You have got to get right down in among them, and haul them
up, or over, or you have to push them around. And, gentlemen, that
is all nonsense. It is not necessary to know the exact numbers of
those seals. If you could count every pup, it would not do you any
good. You can come approximately and sensibly to a general idea.
You know you have got down to the dregs to-day, and you are bound
to come to that idea, as we did last summer. A man can go over
every foot of the ground as we went over it and as we charted and
described it; and he can see from station to station and from point
to point on the maps as we have put them here, and if there are more
he will see them, and if there are less he will notice them. Any man
of common sense can doit. It does not make any difference whether
there are 5,000, 10,000, or 20,000; in the aggregate it does not
amount to anything. There must be a million pups there before the
surplus male life that we can draw upon, is safely established. Then
“we can go in, from past experience, Mr. Chairman, and take 40,000,
50,000, or 60,000 choice young male seals annually, into the indefinite
future
Mr. StePHENsS. Of what age?
742 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiotr. After there is this increase, when there is at least a
million pups, then the safe surplus 2 and 3 year clds would be
annually, some 60,000.
Mr. Parton. He means the age of the seals to be taken.
Mr. Extiorr. [ would take male seals at 2 and 3 years old.
Mr. Patron. You say you would take 40,000 or 50,000 if there were
1,000,000 there, but if there were 500,000 do you mean to say you
should not take 20,000 ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I do not think it would be a safe thing to do.
Mr. Patron. Why not?
Mr. Exxiotr. I will come to that. If you want me to go into that
I will explain exactly. I was coming to that. That is the commer-
cial side of it. ;
George A. Clark, under oath, affirmed, February 20, 1914, that the
Government had lost $500,000 during the season of 1913 by not
killing 10,000 seals which would have averaged $50 a piece.
How many skins did the Government get out of 12,920 which it
took in 1910, which averaged $50 a piece ?
Only 871 such skins, as the following exhibit of the prices obtained
declares, to wit:
RECORD OF THE LONDON SALE, PRIBILOF FUR SEAL CATCH, 1910.
The prices received at the London sale, December 16, 1910, for the
12,920 Pribilof skins, taken June and July, 1910, were for the whole
catch £83,227 2s. 3d., or $403,000 net. Average of $34.38 per skin.
Four-year-olds, or ‘‘middlings,”’ none taken.
Short 4-year-olds, long 3-year-olds, or ‘‘middlings and smalls,” none
taken.
Skins, 78, 3-year-olds, or ‘‘smalls,’”’ brought 240s., or $60 per skin.
Skins, 793, 2-year-olds, or ‘‘large pups,” brought 218s., or $54.40 per
skin.
Skins, 3,775, short 2-year-olds and long yearlings, or ‘‘middling
pups,’ brought 164s., or $41 per skin.
Skins, 6,195, yearlings, or ‘‘small pups,” brought 126s., or $31.50
per skin.
Mr. McGurre. From what are you quoting?
Mr. Extiotr. The New York Fur Trade Review.
Mr. McGuire. That is a quotation?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; and it is an analysis.
Mr. STEPHENS. How did they classify those 6,195?
Mr. Exxiotr. As‘‘small pups.” 1,809‘‘short yearlings,” or ‘‘extra-
small pups,”’ 122s., or $30.50; 270not well classified ; total, 12,920 skins.
See page 60, New York Fur Trade Review, February 1, 1911.
You see, there is only a dollar’s difference between the ‘‘small pups”’
and the ‘‘extra-small pups.’ You are right down at the bottom,
now, down at the dregs, and the dregs bring $31 a skin while the
2-year-olds and 3-year-olds bring $60 and $54; but observe, gentle-
men, that of the good 3-year-olds and 2-year-olds there are only 871,
the dregs making up the balance. The average runs from $50 or
$55, as Mr. Clark says it would do, to less than $34 a skin.
The CHarrMaANn. Let me ask you whether you have the prices of the
skins of small pups and extra-small pups ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 743
Mr. Extiorr. I have got them right here; 126 shillings for ‘‘small
pups”’ and 240 shillings for 3-year-olds; $31 for the yearlings and $60
for the 3-year-olds, and $54 for the 2-year-olds. But the minute you
strike the yearlings you drop right down to $31, getting for the smallest
yearlings $30.
Mr. STEPHENS. Extrasmall pups? -
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; $30. They are the yearlings.
Mr. McGurre. I understand you to say that the London report
specifically states yearlings. -
Mr. Exxrorr (interposing). Yes; I have taken the prices from the
London reports.
Mr. McGuire. I say, the London report states that they are
yearlings ?
Mr. Exziorr. No; they do not state that; they call them ‘‘small
pups.
Mr. McGutre. I see.
Mr. Extrorr. I call them ‘‘yearlings,”’ and anybody who knows
anything about them, calls them yearlings.
Mr. McGurre. I misunderstood your quotation.
Mr. Exxiorr. I have made it perfectly straight here. I have not
attempted to conceal that or deceive this committee about the quota-
tions Ea these London standards. They call them ‘‘small pups”’
and then I call them ‘‘yearlings.’”’ The ‘‘small pups’ bring that
sum. I quote the ‘‘small pups” as the dregs of the seal sales in
London.
Mr. McGurre. But you quoted the yearlings.
Mr. Exxtiotr. I put my interpretation on them. I have got it
quoted here properly, as you will see by looking at it.
Mr. McGuire. You were quoting and stated at various times that
you were quoting the London sales.
Mr. Extiotr. An ‘‘analysis”’ of the London sales.
Mr. McGuire. But you quoted yearlings and 2-year-olds. I thought
those were quotations, but I was misled.
Mr. Exxriorr. No; I have got the quotations on the ‘‘small pups.”
Mr. McGutre. Isee. Then the yearlings you speak of were thrown
in by yourself. That is your own language?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; that is not
Mr. McGurreE (interposing). Is it your own or did you get it from
the London sales ? :
Mr. Exuiort. I got the ‘‘small pups.”
Mr. McGuire. Where did you get the yearlings ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I got that from my own knowledge.
Mr. McGuire. Did you get that from the London prices ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Of course I did.
Mr. McGuire. Is the word ‘‘yearling’’ used there ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No, it isnot; but I know what a ‘‘small pup”’ is and
what a yearling is.
Mr. McGuire. Then ‘‘yearling’”’ was not a quotation ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Certainly not. I have not quoted it here. I have
quoted ‘‘small pups” at ‘‘126 shillings.”
Mr. McGutire. That is all right.
d
744 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Extiort. I have got the quotations there, but I tell you that
the ‘‘small pups’’ are yearlings, because they are at the bottom of
the list.
Mr. McGuire. I simply wanted to know whether it was your con-
clusion or a quotation.
Mr. Extiorr. Oh, no; I have got the quotations in the right places
on every point.
This table of sizes and prices has prevailed since 1904, and shows
the immense pressure put upon the killing of all the large young male
seals on account of the prices obtained for the $60 or ‘‘small”’ skins;
the lessees paid as much tax as they did for the ‘‘small pups,” and no
more; it was worth about $50 net, while the yearling skin was only
$20 net, for the lessees.
Mr. Parton. There would not be any inducement to kill the small
ones if they could get big ones.
Mr. Exxiotr. They got all the big ones and then they filled up with
small ones in order to get their quota. There were only 871 big ones
and they had to take the little ones to get the 12,000. There were
only 871 that brought more than $50.
Mr. Parton. What is the next price ?
Mr. Exxiorr. The next is $41.
Mr. Patron. How many at $41.
Mr. Exxiorr. They were ‘‘short 2-year-olds”’ and “‘long-yearlings.”’
Mr. Parron. How many of them ?
Mr. Exvxiorr. 3,775. They brought $41. They did not bring $50.
Mr. Parron. I did not say they did. I wanted to know how many
there were.
Mr. Extrorr. It is all clearly stated here. You gentlemen have
got to read these figures to understand them. I can not understand
them when they are being read. So I do not blame you.
How many $50 skins did the Government get out of the 12,002
skins which it took on the Pribilof Islands in 1911?
It secured just 1,522 such skins. :
How many $50 skins could it have secured in 1912? When out
of 3,764 skins it had only 993 such skins. And it had the whole
season to pick them out in; yet this poor showing of good 2-year-olds
and 3-year-olds was made?
Then, if this clear inability on the part of the agents of the Govern-
ment to get more than 993 $50 skins out of a selected 3,764 skins
taken during the whole season of 1912 has thus been declared by the
London sales of January 17, 1913, how a the name of sense could
these agents have secured 10,000 ‘$50 skins’? out of the stock hauled
on the islands in 19138? I will leave that for Baron Munchausen to
argue out.
If they had secured those young male seals—those $50 “large
pup”’ and “‘small”’ skins—10,000 of them, they would have “‘cleaned
up the hauling grounds” just as effectively as they did in 1909 when
Clark described the job then, as “‘ whirlwind sealing.”
Yet Mr. Clark reads a long polemic to this committee in which he
repeats the stuff and fiction of ‘‘ fighting bulls” and ‘‘ trampled pups”
just as though this libel upon the natural law which governs the life
of this wild animal had not been exposed, and its authors have not
all been properly removed from the islands!
INVESTIGATION OF THI) FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. %45
Just take notice of this review of the sale of the last batch of 1,800
skins taken last year and sold in St. Louis, December 16, last, as
published in the Fur News Magazine, New York, January, 1914,
page 43, to wit:
Now, ‘let me read this to you, page 43.
Mr. StepHENs. What is the date of that?
Mr. Exuiotrr. The Fur News of January, 1914, New York, one of
the oldest and best established journals of the trade, 71 West: Twenty-
third Street, New York City. A. L. Belden, president; Paul Belden,
secretary and treasurer. Page 43.
SEAL SALE.
The most widely, if not best, advertised seal sale was held in St. Louis on December
16, 1913. Prices as compared. with the 1912 collection were nearly 40 per cent lower,
though the offering of 1912 skins was more than three times greater.
The skins were purchased as follows:
For New York:
Charles: Lortersion GAGaudic, & Blume -34 5) 6 eee i Bh cee eee oe oe 953
Crea OGhapalatreres) de Coste Ps eu tais Ga gat eee Soil Se 179
COMER) Tbe KE pete AS Aaa a gt Rea sae ce ch Ha ae el aN 180
Ay SLD EN WATT raft 2 Ue AS Ei gs OI oo pa Re Galt Re ae UN a eg ama Ce - 90
TNO RG Cocchi A Mme BS Mey A NUE, REN gat is Mot 5 RRS Sr DTN aa 1, 402
For St. Paul:
Pree All brech it Gi Some task oe ae wee ea ee I REO Oh ne | PR aE 131
For St. Louis: af
Samurelg hess erwior Aol) dy Merely tee oe ee Np eee a 196
REMPRUG ME TT PE COs 5 ee ers phe a eek A ah MS tai a ea 83
Stpxaptstebe cc Hull ere cae 2 ep As pe LEY, SO AS, ARIE MR CCR CR Rae 2 141
aE cel eeenep ep. x Nest eat et o ¥S N Sore OEE hayle Ere nt rea abe arene har Sin ae 320
For Leipzig ‘
omer: a) Cor 22 2250s us ee = eM ee ae neti eee tet Swap yn a Gea. 45
EEN TVG La PONE ge esa BS Ra NE SS 39 9 aD IC SERGI PI A ORI a 1, 898
This was the smallest seal sale held since the Government purchased Alaska in 1867,
and more unnecessary expense was directly attached to it by Government action
than any sale of seals ever held; the total amount realized for the skins sold in St.
Louis on December 16, 1913, was $55,156, an average of $29.06.
Where are those $50 skins ?
Mr. Parron. How many skins were sold?
Mr. Exxrorr. One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight. Yet
they could not get any $50 average. They could not get 1,898 skins
to bring $50.
An average of $29.06 was very low compared with recent years, and a decline of
nearly 40 per cent in average as compared with the sale of the 1912 collection.
The highest price, December 16, 1913, was $52 per skin, for only one lot of 43 skins;
highest in 1912 was $58 per skin for 109 skins; the lowest price, 1913, was $15.
Only one lot, the smallest lot in the offering, 18 skins, brought more than in 1912,
and only 71 cents more per skin.
In December, 1910, the first year in which the Government sold the skins on its
own account, the sale being held in London, with a total of 13,584 skins, the average
price realized was $32.76.
Mr. Parron. When was this?
Mr. Exriorr. December, 1910. I have been reading this to you
from the Fur News.
746 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Parron. Was there just as much of a demand for skins as
there had been ?
Mr. Extiorr. I suppose so. I am quoting these people. I do
not pretend to pass on the question at all.
Mr. McGurre. Have you the London sales of 1913?
Mr. Exziotrr. Yes. [Reading:]
©. M. Lampson & Co. exposed to sale by auction at the College Hill public sale
room on Friday, 17th January, 1913 (following the fur catalogue), at about 2 o’clock,
the following goods, viz: Skins, 3,773 salted fur seals, Alaska.
Here is where you get the prices:
Lot 1, 232 shillings, 4 middlings and smalls, 51 smalls. Lot 2, 232 shillings, 5 mid-
dlings and smalls, 50 smalls.
There you get exactly what those skins brought and what the
sizes are. ;
Mr. McGurre. They are not figured out in dollars?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; but you can divide that by four and get the
dollars. You see, that is over $50, about $58, for the best sizes.
Mr. McGuire. Per skin?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes. That is what they bring apiece.
Mr. McGuire. That is, the best ones?
Mr. Exriorr. That is the best ones. There is no difficulty in
etting at exactly what they are doing.
Mr. McGuire. Find out what the smalls brought.
Mr. Exxiorr. The “small pups” brought ‘{106 shillings.” Divide
that by four and you will find what that averages (the “‘smalls,” or
3-year-olds, brought $58).
Mr. McGuire. What were they ?
Mr. Exxiorr. They were yearlings and so were the ‘extra small
pups,” ‘106 shillings.” Having all of these figures it is not difficult
to find what these skins brought.
The CHarrMANn. I would like*to ask whether there is any difference
in the prices of skins now and the prices of some years ago ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Oh, they vary; they have their ups and downs, of
course. But they have been very steady for the last 10 years. They
have brought nearly the same average.
Mr. Patron. Just about the same ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir.
The Cuarrman. Do you know whether the fact that Congress
passed a law to have a closed season had any bearing upon the prices ?
Mr. Exxtiorr. No. There have been but a few of them in the
market since 1890, and it did not have any effect at all. They have
discounted the disappearance for the last 10 years of these skins, but
the minute the supply comes back to them, they will come to it all
right again.
Mr. SrepHEns. Did the stopping of pelagic sealing raise the prices ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; not at ant
The CHarrmMan. Does this comparison of prices between the
different grades, as they are found in the London sales catalogues,
run pretty well all the way through ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; they have run ever since 1869 that way. The
best skins are the 3-year-olds, or ‘‘ smalls.”
The Cuarrman. I mean, whether this comparison you spoke of a
little while ago——
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 747
Mr. Exvviorr (interposing). No; these are away up above what they
were in 1869. Seal skins have trebled in value since that time.
Mr. McGurre. What has caused that?
Mr. Exxiort. Scarcity.
The CuHairMAN. I mean, so far as the price of the skin of a small
~and extra small pup is concerned ?
a Exuiorr. They run right together; they are about the same
thing.
Mr. SrePHENS. What is the difference between the prices obtained
in St. Louis last year and the prices obtained in previous years ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Oh, about the same. I think the Secretary did very
well in selling them in St. Louis. I think when you have so few of
them it is better to have the sale here, because there is the added cost
of going over there and the commission, so that it balances up.
Mr. Parton. And there is the extra cost of advertising, and every-
thing else.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes. I will not go into that, but I think on general
panos, while we are handling but a few skins, that is the best way
to do it. :
Mr. Patron. And while we have the facts here ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir. Now, gentlemen, I believe I am ready for
any questions and I will be glad to answer any that you care to put to
me. I have made all the statements I think it is necessary to make
and I do not think I am called upon to go outside to make statements
of a personal nature. I do not care anything about it. I am ready
to give any answers to you, whether upon anything I have stated or
otherwise. I shall be glad to answer all your questions and shall do
so frankly.
Thereupon, by unanimous consent, a recess was taken until Friday,
March 13, 1914.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
HouskE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Friday, March 18, 1914.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY W. ELLIOTT—Continued.
The CuarrMan. You may proceed if you have any questions to ask,
Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Elliott, when were you first on the Pribilof
Islands ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I first landed April 21, 1872, at Lukannon Bay,
St. Paul Island, at 9 o’clock in the morning.
Mr. McGuire. Who owned those islands at that time ?
Mr. Exxiorr. The United States Government. It was a Govern-
ment reservation.
Mr. McGurre. In what capacity did you go?
Mr. Exziorr. As an assistant agent of the United States Treasury
Department, and unofficially, as a collaborator and associate of the ©
Smithsonian Institution, to make collections and studies of the seal
life, birds, and everything else.
748 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. How long were you there at that time?
Mr. Exxiorr. I remained on the islands from April 21, 1872, until
the following year, when I left them, I think, the middle or end of
August, 1873, and returned to San Francisco; went over to the
department and told them that I had finished my field work on the
islands, and that unless I could have a revenue-cutter and extend my ©
surveys outside, I would complete my report, and hand in my resigna-
tion as an officer of the Government.
Mr. McGuire. Just when did you leave the islands ?
Mr. Exxiotr. In 1873; the middle or end of August. I am not
recise about the date, but it was after the skins had all been bun-
dled and the company’s ship was ready to go down. That can be
found; I can ascertain that and get the exact date.
Mr. McGuire. You were there during the active season of 18722
Mr. Exriotr. And in 1873. I went over and spent the season of
1873 on St. George. I might add, in detail, that I left St. Paul Island,
I think, on the Ist of June, 1873, and went over, and landed on St.
George Island on the 2d of June, and remained there until about the
2d, 3d, or 4th of August, and then went back to St. Paul, and came
down with the skins on or about August 15, 1873.
Mr. McGuire. The seals leave the islands during the month of
November ?
Mr. Extrorr. As a body, yes; although some are there during the
winter—a few hundred.
Mr. McGuire. What did you do during the winter of 1872 and
1873.
Mr. Exxiorr. I worked up the series of field notes I had made
during the summer, which, of course, were very voluminous, because
I was on the rookeries day and night. I worked them up in detail
and prepared them so that I could renew the survey during the com-
ing season day and night. I also worked up a series of computations
from my base-line bearings which bore on my topographical surveys,
which I had partly mapped out during the summer but had not com-
pleted. I also finished up a series of some 250 or 300 drawings and
water colors, being life studies or pictures of that life. Indeed, I was
very busy.
Mr. McGuire. Did you work principally indoors during that
winter ¢
Mr. Exxiorr. You have got to work indoors; you can not get out
and go about much after the middle or end of November at all.
Mr. McGuire. I understood you to say you were on the rookeries
day and night ?
Mr. Exvriotr. Why should I be there day and night in the winter?
I was there only during the breeding season.
Mr. McGurre. I see. Now, during the winter time, of course,
whatever work you did was indoors ?
Mr. Extiorr. It had to be. The object of my spending the win-
ter there—the reason why I did not come down and go up again in
the spring—was that I wanted to see the last seals leave in November
and December and the first ones arrive in the following spring.
When the vessel left in August, of course, that would not do.
Mr. McGuire. Now, then, when did you return to the islands?
Mr. Exvuiorr. Well, as I said, I told the Secretary of the Treasury
that unless I could go back with a revenue cutter and extend my
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 749
surveys outside of the islands, I did not want to return. Then he
said, “‘I will gladly do that if I can get authority from Congress.”
Mr. McGurre. | asked you when you next returned ?
Mr. Exxtiorr. I went back on the revenue cutter Reliance under
authority of an act approved April 22, 1874, which authorized the
Secretary of the Treasury to appoint a man qualified by experience
and education to make a survey of the condition of the fur-seal herd
and other matters in Alaska. I received my appointment
Mr. McGuirE (interposing). You returned in 1874?
Mr. Evxiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. At what time.
Mr. Extiorr. I must have gotten back about the 6th or 7th of
September, or later, perhaps. I can find that; it is all in the rec-
ord and testimony here, however.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking for your best judgment.
Mr. Extiotr. It is about that or within a few days. Iwas accom-
panied by an associate, Lieut. Commander Washburn Maynard,
United States Navy.
Mr. McGuire. When you returned in September, 1874, how long
did you remain ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Then I had my report to elaborate——
Mr. McGuire (interposing). I am asking you how long you re-
mained. Tell me that.
Mr. Exxtiorr. Remamed where?
Mr. McGuire. On the islands.
Mr. Extiorr. I landed on the islands in 1874, I think, the 28th of
June.
Mr. McGuire. I thought you said September.
Mr. Exriorr. No; I landed on the islands the 28th of June and
remained there until the middle of August, or near the end, before
I left them. Then we cruised to St. Matthews Island, St. Law-
rence
Mr. McGuzre (interposing). In 1874 you returned to the islands ¢
Mr. ExviottT. Yes; tended on St. George June 28, on the Reliance,
that being the name of the revenue cutter, Capt. Baker.
Mr. McGurre. How long did you remain on the islands at that
time ?
Mr. Exxiorr. From June 28 I was there until the 14th or 15th of
August, after the skins were all taken, and the work of the season
closed. Then we went aboard the Reliance at St. Paul Island, and
cruised to the northward, to St. Matthews Island; made ‘a survey of
that island, to see whether there was any possibility of seal rookeries
having been there, or whether they could be there.
Mr. McGuire. You were at that time in the employ of the Goy-
ernment ?
Mr. Extiotr. Wholly; yes, sir; and I was employed under the
authority of that act. There was no other designation except that.
Mr. McGuire. When did you again return to the islands ?
Mr. Exxriotr. Then again I went to the islands in 1876, in an
unofficial and confidential capacity, as an arbitrator for the lessees
in a family difference over business they had. I got up there in Sep-
tember, and left, I think, the latter part of that month or early in
October. I was there about three weeks.
Mr. McGurre. You went to the islands unofficially ——
"50 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exriorr (interposing). In an unofficial capacity entirely.
Mr. McGurre. In 1884, you say ?
Mr. Expiotr. In 1876 I went up.
Mr. McGuire. At what time did you land on the islands?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, I think it must have been about the middle or
end of September. I am not certain. And I stayed there about 3
weeks, and then came right down, after making certain examinations.
Mr. McGuire. You say you went unofficially ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes. I went up as an aiitintes in a dispute
between the directors of the lessees, the board of directors. Three
of them wanted to curtail the killing, and four of them wanted to
continue it. And they agreed to leave it to me.
Mr. McGutre. You were there at that time about how long?
Mr. Exziorr. Not to exceed three weeks, I do not think. Of course
I made no report
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Now, let us see. Just whom did you
represent when you went there in 1876?
Mr. Exxiorr. I represented nobody but myself. I went up there
as my own master, at the invitation of these warring factions in the
board of trustees.
Mr. McGurre. Now, who were the warring factions ?
Mr. Exvxiorr. The board of trustees.
Mr. McGutre. Tell us who constituted the board of trustees ?
Mr. Extrorr. There were three on one side and four on the other.
There were seven members, and four wanted to continue the killing,
to take 100,000, and three were not in favor of it; then it was in
dispute.
Mr. McGuire. By what authority was this board of trustees
constituted ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, by their act of imcorporation.
Mr. McGuire. Who constituted the board of trustees ?
Mr. Exxtrorr. Well, the men that I personally knew and was in con-
tact with were H. M. Hutchinson, John F. Miller, Gustav Niebaum,
Louis Sloss, William Kohl, and William Gerstle. Those are the men
I came in contact with.
Mr. McGuire. They were trustees of what ?
Mr. Extrorr. I call them “trustees,’”’ but they were directors.
They were stockholders and directors of the Alaska Commercial Co.
The whole story of the organization is in my report of November 19,
1874, made to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. McGurre. I want to find out now who these men were and
what they were in fact. Were they the representatives of a corpora-
tion ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir; the Alaska Comercial Co., the lessees of the
islands.
Mr. McGurre. They were in fact the lessees ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Certainly. That is what I mean.
Mr. McGuire. You went at their request ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And were in their employ ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No, sir. I was not hired by them to do anything.
Mr. MoGurre. Did you receive any remuneration ?
Mr. Exvtrorr. Yes. That is in the testimony. I have given it in
detail here.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 75]
Mr. McGurre. Well, | am asking you now. | I do not want to refer
to that testimony.
Mr. Exxtiotr. Yes; I received substantial remuneration for my
services after they were over.
Mr. McGuire. How long were you in the employ at that time of
the Alaska Commercial Co. ?
Mr. Extiorr. I could not have been in their ‘“‘employ,” as you call
it, and I object to that term, because I was not hired by them. Iwas
engaged in that particular business not much over six weeks, or two
months.
Mr. McGurre. You do not mean to say you imposed yourself on
them ?
Mr. Extrotr. No; they asked me to act as umpire.
Mr. McGurre. And you received remuneration ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes, sir; but it was never mentioned before I went
up; that is, no mention of compensation between us.
Mr. McGuire. Do you not regard that as being an employee ?
Mr. Ettiott. No; an employee is hired; an employee signs a con-
tract, stipulating just what he is to do, and his terms.
Mr. McGurre. But this company requested you to go, did they not ?
Mr. Exrtiotr. Yes; they asked me.
Mr. McGuire. And in obedience to that request you went?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; in obedience to the verbal request.
Mr. McGuire. And as a result of their request and your compliance
with it you accepted remuneration ?
Mr. Exziotr. Certainly. That is perfectly true, and I did that.
Mr. McGuire. And in your judgment that is not employment ?
Mr. Exziortr. Certainly not; because no man hired me; no man
directed me, and I signed no contract. I was my own master.
Mr. McGuire. How long was it before you went to the islands
again after 1876?
The Cuarrman. Was that the only time you did anything at all
for that company ?
Mr. Erriorr. That is the only real service—no; there was one
more. There was a dispute between Gen. Otis, who was then chief
special agent in charge of the islands, and
The CuarrMan (interposing). My only idea was to clear that up.
Mr. Extiotrr. Yes; there was one other. I came in once again, as
umpire, in 1882 or 1883. Gen. Otis, chief special agent of the islands,
got into a dispute with the company’s manager, Dr. McIntyre, and
it was so serious that either one or the other had to go. So the direc-
tors came to me again and asked me to act as umpire. I took Gen.
Otis’s part, and Mcintyre went to Europe and took a “‘rest’’ for
three years.
The CHarrMaNn. Is that the only time?
Mr. Exxiorr. Those are the only two services I ever rendered to
the Alaska Commercial Co., and I never did anything else for them.
I never wrote a letter for them; never crossed the threshold of a
department for them; never interviewed or appeared before a com-
mittee for them; or, in any way whatever, had I any knowledge of
their business in Washington or in any way whatever did they ever
consult me about their business in Washington. They had a resident
attorney here, an able, competent man, Gen. Jeffries, who attended
to all of their departmental business. They also had a resident agent
)
752 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
here, one of the stockholders and directors, H. M. Hutchinson, who
attended to all their society business, if they had any, or whatever it
was.
Mr. McGuire. You were not their society agent ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I was not their ‘‘business” or “‘society”’ agent. I
was in no way associated with them so that I could be hitched up
with them in any business relations, here or elsewhere. . ;
* The CHarrman. In whose favor did you say you settled the dispute ?
Mr. Exuiorr. In favor of Gen. Otis, the agent of the Government.
I turned their man down.
The CHarRMAN. The company’s man ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; Dr. McIntyre. It was a bitter pill, too, for
him, and not pleasant for me, since he was a personal friend.
Mr. McGuire. Now, recurring to my last question, when was your
first trip to the islands again, after the one made in September, 1876 ?
Mr. Exxiorr. It was in 1890, under the authority of an act approved
April 5, 1890.
Mr. McGuire. You went again in 1890?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Just tell me what time you landed ?
Mr. Exxtiotr. I think I landed that year May 21.- It is in the
testimony.
Mr. McGurre. Well, just your best judgment.
Mr. Exxuiorr. | went up on the company’s steamer Arago, from
San Francisco; sailed May 6, 1890, I believe.
Mr. McGuire. What company’s steamer ?
Mr. Etxuiorr. The North American Commercial Co. steamer, Arago.
Mr. McGurre. The lessees ?
Mr. Exxtrorr. Yes; the lessees’ steamer Arago. We sailed from
San Francisco May 6 and we got up there, I think, on the 21st.
Mr. McGuire. How long did you remain there at that time ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I came down on the Arago. I think I left the islands
the 14th or 16th of August, 1890.
Mr. McGuire. You were there from about May 21 to August 16,
and during the active killing season ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir; until the skins were all bundled and on the
vessel, and I came down to San Francisco with them.
Mr. McGuire. In what capacity did you go at that time ?
Mr. Extiorr. As special agent of the Government under authority
of the act I have just quoted, passed especially to send me up there,
and so mentioned on both floors of Congress, House and Senate.
Mr. McGuire. Did you lobby for that act ?
Mr. Extiorr. No. I did not know a thing about it and did not
have a thing to say or do about it until Secretary Windom opened
the question. It was passed within three weeks from the day 1t was
first Echached to me, and became a law in three weeks afterwards. It
was drawn in the Treasury Department by Hon. Wm. McKinley, jr.,
and Secretory Windom.
Mr. McGuire. It was passed within three weeks from the time it
was broached to you ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Who mentioned it to you?
Mr. Extiorr. Secretary Windom.
Mr. McGutre. And he was then Secretary of the Treasury ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 758
Mr. ELLiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Now, when were you next on the islands?
Mr. Exriorr. I was there under the authority of this committee in
1913. If arrived off the islands on July 8 at noon.
Mr. McGuire. What year ?
Mr. Exxiotr. 1913. We anchored at the village anchorage, St.
Paul’s Island, 5.40 p. m., July 8; went ashore the next morning at
8.40 a. m., and I took up my quarters in the Government house the
same day, July 9, and made my preparations for work on the rookeries,
under the authority of this committee.
Mr. McGurre. And left when?
Mr. Extiorr. Left Seattle July 1, and left Washington
Mr. McGuire (interposing). No; I mean when did you leave the
islands ?
Mr. Exxiott. I left the islands July 30, at noon, on the United
States Revenue Cutter Unalga.
Mr. McGuire. You landed on the island July 8?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; July 9,8.40 a.m. I arrived at the islands July
8, 5.40 p. m., United States Revenue Cutter Tahoma, and anchored
right at the village landing.
Mr. McGuire. And left July 30?
Mr. Exxiorr. Left July 30.
Mr. McGuire. There were about 23 years intervening?
Mr. Exxuiotr. Yes; just 23 years.
Mr. McGutre. During which time you had never been on the
islands ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; never had been on the islands at all.
Mr. McGurre. | wish you would state, just as briefly and concisely
as you can, exactly what the second service was that you rendered to
the Alaska Commercial Co.
Mr. Exxtiortr. Relative to Gen. Otis?
Mr. McGurre. The second service that you mentioned. Who em-
ployed you?
Mr. Exxiorr. I was not ‘‘employed.”’ I was asked to act as arbi-
trator.
Mr. McGuire. Then who asked you ?
Mr. Exxiotr. The warring factions there.
Mr. McGuire. Who were the warring factions ?
Mr. Exxiorr. The board of directors.
Mr. McGuire. Was this the same board of directors-——
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). They were in dispute as to whether
they would support McIntyre or not.
Mr. McGuire. Was this the same board of directors ?
Mr. Evxiotr. Yes; just the same board, and I believe the same
men.
Mr. McGutre. That secured your services before ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Yes; I believe they were the same men; I believe so.
Mr. McGurre. Do you now recall which member of the board
secured your services ?
Mr. Exxiorr. It is difficult to recall that, because it was very brief
and did not last over 48 hours from the time the papers were referred
to me over at the Smithsonian Institution. if I remember, the
president of the company at that time was William Gerstle, and he
addressed me a letter with the papers in regard to this dispute; and
5B490—14—_48
754 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
then Gen. Jeffries came to me and brought some other papers to~
me and said, ‘‘Mr. Elliott, our people are at sword’s points over this
question of whether they will sustain Dr. McIntyre or not, and they
have agreed to let you settle it.’ Dr. McIntyre was their superin-
tendent, and he had gotten into difficulty with chief special agent
Otis, who was in charge of the islands, about the conduct of the work
there.
Mr. McGuire. Do you remember the nature of their differences ?
Mr. Exuiotr. I do not like to recite confidential matters, Mr.
McGuire.
Mr. McGurre. I did not ask you to recite them; I asked you if you
remembered the nature of their differences.
Mr. Extrorr. Yes; I remember the substance of them. It was
this
Mr. McGurre (interposing). You need not mind if it is a con-
fidential matter.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, it was in one sense of the word. It was not
public; it was a private matter. But here it is, since we have got
it started: Gen. Otis claimed, as the representative of the Govern-
ment, that he had absolute control of every detail of the work on the
islands, absolute control——
_Mr. McGuire (interposing). Gen. Otis, then, was the Govern-
ment’s representative /
Mr. Exttiorr. Yes. And Dr. McIntyre claimed that, under the
contract, he had exclusive control of certain work on the killing
grounds. There is the whole thing in a nutshell. And I took Gen.
Otis’s part, and said he was the absolute man in control, and that
Otis should be sustained by the company.
Mr. McGuire. You were employed or requested to decide this
matter ¢
Mr. Extiorr. I did not call it being “employed;” I was not hired.
Mr. McGutre. Well, your services were secured, were they not?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes; they were requested.
Mr. McGurre. And secured ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, I rendered them.
Mr. McGurre. You rendered the services at the request of the
company’s representatives ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; the differmg factions.
Mr. McGuire. And how long were you doing that work ?
Mr. Exxrorr. I do not think it took me over 48 hours.
Mr. McGuire. You did not go to the islands?
Mr. Exxtrorr. Oh, no; it was done right over in my room at the
Smithsonian Institution.
Mr. MoGurre. Did you receive compensation for what you did?
Mr. Exzzorr. Yes, sir; 1 ‘did.
Mr. McGuire. From the Government, or from the company ?
Mr. Exuiorr. No, sir; from the company. Why should the Gov-
ernment pay me?
Mr. McoGurre. I am asking you now.
Mr. Exxuiorr. Oh, yes; from the company.
Mr. McGurre. Now, have you mentioned all the remuneration
that you have received for services from this Alaska Commercial Co. ?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes, sir; I have covered the whole field. Those are
the only services I ever rendered, and I did not render them as an
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 755
employee. I was my own master. I was not hired by anybody,
and did just as I pleased; and that is not in the nature of an em-
ployment.
The CHarrMAN. You mean it was more like a judge would render
a decision ¢
Mr. Eiuiortr. Yes.
The CHarrMAN. Between parties ?
Mr. Evrrorr. Yes; exactly. I was the arbitrator between the two
differing factions of this company.
Mr. McGurre. Your position is, that one must be hired before
they can be regarded as an employee ?
Mr. Exziorr. Certainly.
Mr. McGuire. Of the employer ?
Mr. Evzrorr. Certainly. No other definition can be made.
Mr. McGurre. Now, coming to your last visit to the islands, in
your report you mention so many bulls ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You do not seem to separate them, or classify them.
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; I do.
Mr. McGuire. It is not my recollection that you do.
Mr. Exirotr. My report speaks for itself;“and they are well
classified.
Mr. McGutre. In what way do you classify them ?
Mr. Exxiiort. May I refer to my report ?
Mr. McGurre. Yes; you may refer to your report.
Mr. Exirotr. On page 5 I say, “‘Old bulls (8 to 15 years old),
1,400; young bulls (6 to 7 years old), 150.” Those were on the
breeding grounds. Now, there were
Mr. McGurre (interposing). That is, the 150 were on the breeding
grounds ?
Mr. Erriorr. Those were all on the breeding grounds. Nothing
could be more explicit. Isay:
There are some 56,000 cows on the St. Paul breeding grounds and about 16,000
on St. George, or 72,000 pupping cows this season of 1913. To this number we may
safely add some 7,000 nubiles, making in all about 80,000 cows for this year of 1913.
The 72,000 pups of 1913 (less about 2 per cent death rate for natural causes), or 70,000
pups in round numbers, and some 1,400 old bulls, with less than 150 young bulls
make pe Eee ae sum total of the breeding strength of the fur-seal herd of this
season 0 .
Now, that is explicit and clear, is it not?
Mr. McGuire. Well, you have not, seemingly, there mentioned
any of the inactive bulis.
Mr. Exxiorr. Those are the bulls that are on the breeding grounds.
They are assumed to be active, even if I did not see then engaged
in propagating the species.
Mr. McGuire. Were there any other inactive bulls?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; there were about 150 or 200 vagrant bulls,
but those come outside.»
Mr. McGuire. You estimated them differently ?
Mr. Erxiorr. Yes. For instance, turn to page 49. On Upper
Zapadni [ located about 40 vagrant and spent bulls, all hauled just
north of Station V. They are not included in this table on page 5.
Mr. McGuire. Did you make an estimate of all of them ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; I have about 1,700.
Mr. McGuire. Of inactive bulls ?
756 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Exuiort. No; all the bulls, active and inactive. I rounded
them up in another place, about 1 700.
Mr. McGurre. I am trying to cet the number of inactive bulls.
Mr. Extiorr. I have got them indicated as spent and helpless,
but I count them up in a final summary on one of the pages here.
Let us see where it is. Anybody that goes over my work can trace
every step, locate every pod, and so forth.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you about other matters. So you did
not especially classify the old or inactive bulls ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Certainly not. Why should I?
Mr. McGuire. Now, then, what basis did you use for the counting
of the cows? .
Mr. Exxtiorr. The basis that I recognized and published in 1873
and 1874.
Mr. McGuire. What was that?
Mr. Exvriorr. That half of them were never present at any one
time after the 10th of July to the 20th, the time of the height of the
breeding season. Let me read to you what I published in
Mr. McGuire (interposing). No; you need not do that. J am
asking you what you did up there and that might encumber the
record. if necessary, in your judgement and in the judgment of
the committee, you can later put it in.
Mr. Exxrorr. No. If you do not dispute it, it is all Salty
Mr. McGuire. You proceeded to count the cows that were on the
islands ?
Mr. Exzrorr. In each harem as nearly as we could.
Mr. McGuire. As nearly as you could ?
Mr. Exvriorr. Yes; as nearly as we could. No man has a right
to say that he can “‘accurately count” those seals.
Mr. McGuire. You counted the cows as nearly as you could?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Then——
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). And then doubled them.
Mr. McGurre. You doubled them ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And that was the basis of your computation ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Did you count the pups ?
Mr. Exuiotr. No. That is ludicrous.
Mr. McGuire. It is ludicrous that you did not count them ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I say, it would be a ludicrous attempt for me to
attempt to count the pups—that is, made an “‘accurate count.”
Mr. McGuire. Do you mean by that they can not be counted ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I mean they can not be ‘all counted accurately.”
No living man can do it.
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Elhott, you heard the testimony of
Mr. Exxuiorr (interposing). I heard it.
Mr. McGuire. Of Mr. Clark, that they accurately counted the
pups.
Mr. Exvxiorr. I heard it.
Mr. McGuire. You heard the testimony of Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I did not hear him say they had “accurately counted”
the pu
Mr. \foGu IRE. You saw the signed statement of the people who
id the counting?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 757
Mr. Expiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. A number of persons ¢
Mr. Exxiiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And in the face of that actual counting, as men-
tioned by Mr. Clark and the signed statement of all the parties, you
state that these pups can not be counted ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Now, then
Mr. Eiiiorr (interposing). They can not be ‘‘counted accurately.”
Please make that point.
Mr. McGurre. Yes; can not be counted accurately.
Mr. Exxiotr. They are estimated.
Mr. McGuire. You heard the statement and saw the certification
of the parties who counted, to the effect that when the pups were
old enough they got them out and ran them through as they would
run cattle and counted them accurately as they could count cattle?
Mr. Exxiotr. I heard it.
Mr. McGuire. Now, on what date did you leave the islands ?
Mr. Exxriorr. On the 30th of July, 1913, on the Unalga, United
States revenue cutter.
Mr. McGuire. Were you invited to accompany Mr. Clark and the
other parties to count the pups ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. Did you at that time have an idea that they could
not be counted ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You at that time had an opportunity, if you were
right, to show Mr. Clark that he was wrong, if. you had only remained
on the islands two or three days longer, if you were right and he was
wrong in the position that the pups could not be accurately counted.
Mr. Erriorr. You assume that there is a doubt in my mind about
that business.
Mr. McGuire. No; J am asking you the question. I say, you had
an opportunity to convince Mr. Clark that he was wrong.
Mr. Exxtiorr. Why should I convince Mr. Clark that he was
wrong !
Mr. McGurre. Well, if you were right and he was wrong about
this very important question, which goes absolutely to the correct
counting of the female producing seals on the island—TI say, if you
were right and he was wrong, do you not think it was a material
matter, in the interest of the Government and the control of the
seals, counting, etc., that you should convince him about the ques-
tion in dispute ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Not at all, sir. I was to make my report to this
committee and not to him. I was not sent up there to convince him.
Mr. McGurrer. You were on friendly terms with Mr. Clark and his
arty ?
‘ Me Ewuiorr. Certainly; but still I had my own rights.
Mr. McGuire. And you and Mr. Clark were together in taking the
measurements of the skins ?
Mr. Exxiorr. We were not together at all, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Was he not there at the time you took the measure-
ments of the skins?
Mr. Exuiotrr. Yes; and so were the natives, and all the other
people.
758 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. Did you not make computations in the same place
and at the same time when you were taking the measurements ?
Mr. Exziorr. But not under any agreement with him. I never
consulted him, never noticed him. Why should 1? I was the agent
of this committee.
Mr. McGurre. Did you speak to him ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; but unofficially.
Mr. McGurre. Did you talk to him ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; but unofficially; personally, yes.
Mr. McGurre. As the agent of this committee, did you not feel it
was your duty, as nearly as possible, to cooperate with the agents of
the Government ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I was not sent up there to cooperate with any of
them; I was sent up there to get certain facts. I was sent up to
get certain facts without the shghtest reference to anybody on the
islands, the lessees’ agents, employees of the Government, the natives,
or anybody else. J was sent up there to use my judgment, as a “‘duly
qualified expert,” as to the condition of affairs as I should see them,
and bring those facts down to this committee. And then, if there
was any argument or convincing of these men who disagreed with
me on the islands, or anywhere else, it was to be settled here. I was
not to get into an argument with these men who had less experience
and less knowledge than I had.
Mr. McGurre. I did not ask you whether you were to get into an
argument with them. I asked you whether you understood you
were to cooperate with them ?
Mr. Exxiott. Not at all.
Mr. McGuire. With the agents of the Government ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Not at all.
Mr. McGurre. Did you have any instructions from this committee
not to cooperate ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Or to cooperate with them? They were not noticed.
Mr. McGuire. And you regard the committee as a branch of the
Government ? '
Mr. Exxiorr. Certainly I do, and the first branch.
Mr. McGurre. And you regard the executive department of the
Government as being directly in control of the islands ?
Mr. Exuiotrr. Yes, sir; but subordinate to the legislative branch.
Mr. McGutre. It is your position, then, that the executive is
subordinate to the legislative ?
Mr. Exniorr. Certainly, in this case, most decidedly; there is no
argument about it, in my mind.
The CHarrMAn. Let me make a statement there. I think I stated
it once before, but | think it is only fair to do it again. The com-
mittee passed resolutions instructing these men to go up and make
an investigation. I asked the Secretary of Commerce to give them
authority to go on the islands. While they were on the islands they
wired me and said that a Mr. Chamberlin and a Mr. Clark had come
upon the islands and whether they should cooperate with these men.
I wired that they should not, that they should follow the instructions
of the committee. At that time the chairman of this committee did
not know that Mr. Clark had been sent up there, or Mr. Chamberlin,
by the department. So it was really my doings more than anybody
else’s. I did not know what these men were doing there.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 759
Mr. Extiotr. I want to say right here that I regard this committee
and its authority in this busmess paramount; I was its agent, and I
followed the instructions of the committee.
The Cuarrman. I did not know that these men had been instructed
by anybody to go on the islands.
: Mr. McGuire. I am not complaining; I just want to find out the
acts ?
The CuarrMan. I want to clear it up because that is the way it
happened.
Mr. Exxiort. I want to say, in order to save Mr. McGuire a great
deal of trouble, that no man living has had the experience I have had;
no man living has the perspective of that life that Ihave. Therefore
why should I go up and meet any people having lesser knowledge and
understanding and argue this question with them? I was not sent
up by the committee to argue with anybody. I was sent up by the
committee to get the facts bearing on some points which are men-
tioned in the letters of instructions, and I got them and brought them
to the committee. The committee can now take it up with the men
who disagree with me, and argue it with them, just as they are doing
now under oath.
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Hlhott, do you know the exact number
of months you have been on the islands when the seals were there ?
Mr. Exziotr. I have been there six seasons when the seals were
there.
Mr. McGuire. I say, do you know the exact number of months
and days you were there while the seals were there ?
Mr. Exziotr. It does not make much difference, but it was during
the six breeding seasons when the seals were there. I have had more
experience as a trained observer on the islands than any other man.
Such men, like Mr. Lembkey, are not recognized as trained observers,
and never will be from the records they have made.
Mr. McGurre. And who else ?
Mr. Extiorr. Oh, Mr. Lembkey and a number of other agents of.
the Government like him have been there, years and years. I have
been there altogether about two years, or 24 months and some odd
days, counting all my time.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you
Mr. Extiort (interposing). I have had six seasons’ experience on
the breeding grounds.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you the number of days you have been
there during the actual breeding season and killing season ?
Mr. Exxiorr. There are only about 30 days of the active breeding
season, and for six seasons that would be 180 days. I was there
during every one of those seasons.
Mr. McGuire. Now, then, you do not seem to hesitate to make the
ercent that you are the best posted of any man with respect to
seals.
Mr. Exxtiorr. Why should I?
sae McGuire. And the habits and customs of the seals on the
islands.
Mr. Exriorr. Why should 1? Have I not published my authority
ever since 1874% Who else has given that authority earlicr than 1?
760 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. You do that in face of the fact that a number of
men have been there, employed by the Government of the United
ee year in and year out studying and experimenting with those
seals?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. The length of time that Mr. Lembkey and others |
have been on the island in active Government work is far in excess of
the-time that you have spent there?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. That is true of Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. It is true of Mr. Clark?
Mr. Exxiottr. No.
Mr. McGutre. It is not?
Mr. Exxuiotr. No.
Mr. McGurre. It is true of Mr. Chamberlain ?
Mr. Exxriorr. No; he has not been there on his feet but a few days
and then he was flat on his back from illness.
Mr. McGurre. It is true of a number of representatives of the Goy-
ernment that they have been there, and that their experiments have
been, so far as length of time is concerned, far superior in opportunity
to yours ?
Mr. Exrziotr. I do not acknowledge that at all.
Mr. McGuire. Well, they were there longer than you? ~
Mr. Extiotr. That does not make any difference.
Mr. McGurre. They were there engaged in the seal business ?
Mr. Extrorr. But they never published results from original work
like mine. Look at my monograph published before they were born,
some of them. And at that time, 1872-1874, there were millions of
seals there; that gives me a sense of proportion in the premises which
none of them possess. A
Mr. McGuire. Now then these gentlemen were there, some of
them, and they asked you—that is, they were there in 1913, and they
requested you to go with them and count the pups.
Mr. Evxiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You refused to go?
Mr. Exuiorr. Certainly I did, and for good and sufficient reasons.
Mr. McGuire. You left the day before the pup-counting began ?
Mr. Extiorr. I did; there was no pup counting when I went away.
If I had known of it, I would have made an effort to have gotten in-
structions from Washington to have it stopped.
Mr. McGurre. You made no count of the pups whatever?
Mr. Exxrorr. No; because it was futile.
Mr. McGutre. You paid absolutely no attention to them ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Certainly not, and I declared to them that it was
futile and injurious to the herd.
Mr. McGuire. And in that particular you differ from the repre-
sentatives of the Government who were there in 1913—do you or do
you not ?
Mr. Extrort. I differ from them; of course I do. I am very glad
I do, because it is sensible. It is lucky for me that I am sensible
enough to differ with them for my credit and reputation. I should
hate to be in the same boat with them.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 761
Mr. McGuire. You are quite sure they have no opinions along that
line themselves ?
Mr. Extiorr. It is of no consequence to me whatever. I am only
answering your questions.
_ Mr. McGutre. Now then, did you make a map or chart of the
rookeries?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; certainly I did. I made them first in 1872,
and 1873, and 1874, and then again in 1890. There was no chart or
survey whatever of the Priblof Islands until my work of 1872-1874
was done. .
Mr. McGurre. Did you locate any monuments on the rookeries by
which others who followed your work could check it ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. You located monuments on the rookeries ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I took the natural monuments, the natural lay of the
rocks and the natural lay of the shore.
Mr. McGurre. I am asking you whether you located any monu-
ments in making your measurements ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Why should I when there were natural monuments?
Mr. McGuire. I mean, in taking your measurements and adopting
a line, did you locate any monuments of the rookeries that could be
checked by others who might follow you?
Mr. Exxiorr. I did that in 1872 and 1874; and these maps, or my
original surveys, are now in the State Department, purchased from
me by John Hay in 1904. There are up there to-day. .
Mr. McGuire. What kind of monuments did you locate?
Mr. Exxiotr. They are detailed topographic monuments, with all
the stations and measured base lines.
Mr. McGuire. Well, what kind of monuments did you erect there
on the ground to indicate your measurements and surveys ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I have repeatedly told you that I took the same
natural monuments which exist to-day as they did then.
The Cuarrman. Are they noted on that map ?
Mr. Exvxiorr. Yes; and here they are, in smaller detail. JI have
been trying to put it in your hand.
Mr. McGuire. You do not either understand my question or you
do not seem to want to answer it, or something. Now then, let us see.
Did you erect any physical monuments ?
ei Exiiorr. No, sir. Why should I, when the natural ones stood
there ?
Mr. McGuire. That is what I want you to say.
Mr. Exxiorr. When a topographer or surveyor finds a natural
monument, he holds to that.
Mr. McGuire. Yes; but he marks it ?
Mr. Exziotr. Yes; on his chart; he marks it on his chart, and
aoe it is to be found; it endures, and it is the only one that does
endure.
The CuarrmMan. And is that the way you did it?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you whether you marked those natural
monuments ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; they are marked on the charts.
Mr. McGuire. Is that the only place they are marked ?
762 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiorr. The only place.
Mr. McGuire. You did not mark the monuments themselves ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I did not have to; they stood there, and they stand
there to-day. You take my chart and you find them. to- -day there
just as I found them there in 1872-1874.
Mr. McGuire. Now, do you say that a surveyor in the field, if he
finds a natural monument’ does not designate that monument and
mark it except on his map ? .
Mr. Exriorr. He may put a temporary mark on it at the time
when he is plotting the field.
on) MoGuire. What is the purpose of putting on that temporary
mark?
Mr. Exxiorr. For the purpose of making a base-line measurement
to it or from it. I put temporary marks there; I used kegs, flags,
and such things as that when making my original survey.
Mr. McGuire. But there was absolutely nothing i in 1913 by which
anyone could follow you and
Mr. Exvxiotr (interposing). Yes, sir; those monuments are there
to-day.
Mr. McGuire. You put flags there in 1872, you say?
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And put what you say were temporary marks?
Mr. Exziorr. Not a permanent mark, but a temporary mark on
the permanent monuments; and they are there to-day.
Mr. McGuire. You did that for the purpose of designating those
natural monuments ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Now, those flags were only temporary, and if they
have disappeared nobody could follow and check those marked
monuments ¢
Mr. Exuiorr. I beg your pardon; you do not understand
topography.
Mr. McGuire. I guess I do.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, I do not think you do if you make that state-
ment.
Mr. McGuire. What did you put those flags there for?
Mr. Exriorr. For the purpose of getting cross bearings on that
particular place, at the hour of taking my angles i in the field.
Mr. McGuire. That is right. Now, when the flags were removed,
either by one cause or another, w hat were the designations on the
monuments themselves, w hereby——
Mr. Euiorr (interposing). Those cross bearings and that par-
ticular location in my field notes, would be found on the chart; and
you can go there years after and check it up again.
Mr. McGuire. ‘Well, the cross bearings—— _
Mr. ELLiorr (interposing). The cross bearings locate that par-
ticular place.
Mr. McGurre. But only on your chart?
Mr. Exrrorr. They are on the chart to-day.
Mr. McGutre. Is it not a fact that there is absolutely nothing
to-day on those rookeries to indicate that you have established a
monument of any kind at any time?
Mr. Extiorr. Why, I have repeatedly said those “natural monu-
ments,” which I located in 1872-187 4, 1890, by my base lines, are
all there to-day. My charts declare the fact.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF. ALASKA. 763
Mr. McGurre. But at that time you designated those natural
monuments in a temporary way by flags ?
Mr. Exxiort. Not a ‘‘temporary way” at all; it was a ‘“‘ temporary
way” for getting the location of those natural monuments during
the hour of survey by cross bearings on the given point, as to dis-
tances from a given point of departure in turn upon which the whole
survey is based; therefore, they are permanently located on the
map, as being so far from, and so bearing, from that base.
The CHarrMAN. This was done for the purpose of making that
map ? .
Me. Exxiottr. Yes, sir; getting the exact dimensions of the shore
line and superficial area of the ground covered by the breeding seals.
Mr. McGuire. There is absolutely nothing to indicate the monu-
ments there now ?
Mr. Erztiotr. Why should there be?
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you whether there is?
Mr. Erxtiotr. No; but the natural monuments are there.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I wanted to bring out.
Mr. Extiotr. Everything is there as I left it; just as [ left it in
1872; everything.
The Cuarrman. Is a copy of that map on the island?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Yes; I lett coples when I was there in 1872 and
1874, and again in 1890, and they were published in 1896 by order
of the House. (See H. Doc. 175, 54th Cong., ist sess.)
and it was a dismal failure.
Mr. McGuire. That was the count you referred to in your direct
testimony ?
2 Me. Exuiotr. Yes; very briefly. The details of it would fill a
ook.
Mr. McGuire. When all the agents of the Government report
counts in 1901, 1912, and 1913, and report them all successful, you
are still not convinced that pup counting is possible ?
Mr. Exxiorr. The agents do not report them all successful; they
report them as failures. I have made copies of their reports and
have made citations from their reports to the committee.
Mr. McGurre. What are those statements and who are the agents
that made them ?
Mr. Extiorr. Here they are. I thought it was of no use to brin
in my experience, but I would bring in the records of the officia
associates of Mr. Geo. A. Clark and Mr. Lembkey. On page 138,
Exhibit G, hearing No. 1, 1914, to wit:
Copies of official entries in the journal of the United States Treasury agents’ office,
St. George Island, showing the impossibility and the futility of getting an accurate
count of all the live pups on a fur-seal rookery.
764 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. McGuire. Who made that statement ?
Mr. Evxtiorr. What is the difference who made it ?
Mr. McGuire. Who made that statement ?.
Mr. Exxiotr. I can not recognize the officials themselves, but I
copied these from official entries.
Mr. McGurre. You do not know where it came from ?
Mr. Exxiorr. From the official journals cf the agents in charge
of the islands.
Mr. McGurre. You do not know who made the statements?
Mr. Exxiotr. What is the difference? Here is an official entry
in the journal.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know who made that statement ?
Mr. Exxtiorr. No, and I do not care. I do not need to know.
Mr. MoGuire. Js there any other statement of any other person ?
Mr. Exxtiorr. They run all along there.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know who makes those statements ?
Mr. Extiorr. A half dozen men, all sworn officials, during all
these years; one man’s name appears in one place and another
man’s name in another place.
Mr. McGuire. Name one.
Mr. Extiorr. Here it is, 1901, 1902, 1904, 1909, and one of the
Treasury agents, named Adams somewhere, said it was a shame to
continue this counting, that it was a waste of time, and an impos-
sibility to get an accurate count.
Mr. McGuire. You say a man by the name of Adams?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Who was he?
Mr. Errrorr. Assistant agent in charge of the islands.
Mr. McGurre. How long was he there ?
Mr. Exrrorr. I do not know.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know when he was there ?
Mr. Exriorr. Oh, yes; I have cited him. I have a citation of his
right here.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know when he was there?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes. I have a citation here.
Mr. McGurre. I am asking you when.
Mr. Erriorr. Wait a minute and I will get it. He says this thing
should be stopped (p. 44, hearing No. 1, 1914):
Under date of Sunday, September 29, 1895, as to the effect of surf nip on pups, occurs
the following: Special Agent Adams, in company with Dr. Voss and Appolon Bor-
dofsky, made a count of dead pups on Lagoon Reef rookery. Only one dead pup was
found adjacent to the water’s edge owing to the recent southwest gales, during which
the suri washed over the lower breeding grounds. The count was as follows: Dead
pups, 300; pups in dying condition, 40. On page 410, under date of Monday, Novem-
ber 11, 1895, Special Agent Adams declares that this rustling among the pups, cows,
and bulls to count the dead pups is detrimental in the following language: Examina-
tions of the reef, Lukannon Polovina, Ketavie, and Tolstoi, demonstrate the fact that
the seals are mixed up, pups and cows being together and hauled well back from the
water, a condition which I am informed has never existed before to such an extent.
It has, therefore, been impossible to make drives from the above-named rookeries. A
certain drive was ordered from Middle Hill. The seals seemed restless, a condition
noticeable ever since my return to the island September 13. Whether this is due to
constant disturbance during the summer and breeding season, they being constantly
subjected to scientific investigation, can not say positively, but am of that opinion.
The counting of pups on the rookeries necessitates the driving off of all seals and is
detrimental. It should be stopped.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 765
Mr. McGuire. What date is that?
Mr. Exxiottr. 1895.
Mr. McGuire. What time in 1895?
Mr. Exxiorr. [ have read the whole detail of it.
Mr. McGuire. I do not think you gave the date.
Mr. Exxiortr. “‘Monday, November 11, 1895,” and the other date
was ‘“‘September 29, 1895.”
Mr. McGurre. Now, Mr. Elbott, the facts are, are they not, that
there are seasons of the year when the pups arevery young, when there
are large numbers of them that are very young ?
Mr. Exziott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And that counting would be impracticable, but late
in the season the pups become strong ?
Mr. Exxiorr. How late in the season do you mean ?
Mr. McGutre. I mean before they leave the islands.
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; but they are counted before they are strong.
They are counted when they are less than 2 months old; some when
only 10 days old. Some of them are counted when they are 1 day old,
and some are being born while they are counting! (1. e., between August
1-8, annually).
Mr. McGure. Some few, perhaps; but Mr. Clark waited until the
pups were strong. Now, then
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). I deny that.
Mr. McGuire. After the pups have become strong and able to
travel—and I believe you testified they were very active?
Mr. Exxtrorr. When they area year old. Youmixedmeup. You
did not follow me. = :
Mr. McGurre. When the pups are a year old?
Mr. Exxiotr. When they come back as yearlings they are then the
most active, lithe, and sinewy of the animals.
Mr. McGuire. I may be mistaken in my observation that you
stated the pups before they left the islands were very strong and
active and could go anywhere?
Mr. Extiotr. | never made any such statement.
Mr. McGuire. I may be wrong.
Mr. Exxiorr. They are logy in November before they leave, heavy,
ae clumsy. They are mostly fat—balls of fat, clumsy, and logy
then.
Mr. McGutrz. Now, then, with respect to these meetings that you
had with the natives for the purpose of taking their testimony.
Mr. ExioTr. Yes. °
Mr. McGuire. Who was with you when you took their testimony ?
Mr. Extiotr. Mr. Gallagher. He was the only white man.
Mr. McGurre. What authority did he have?
Mr. Exvtiorr. He was my assistant, by order of this committee.
Mr. McGutre. Did he have any authority except what you gave
him on the islands ?
Mr. Exziorr. He had authority from the chairman of this com-
mittee. J never gave him any.
The CuHarrMan. The resolution appears in the record.
Mr. Exxtrorr. I did not even know him until I met him in Seattle.
Mr. McGuire. He was a stenographer ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes, sir.
766 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGurre. And took notes as you gave them to him ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That was the important and great value of his serv-
ices.
Mr. McGuire. That was the extent of his services ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; and as a witness to other things, and he as-
sisted me in counting and census estimates. I had great regard for
him, because I found him an extremely careful man.
Mr. McGuire. Now, then, who was your interpreter when you had
those meetings with the natives ?
Mr. Exiiorr. His name was George Kochergin. He had been
educated in San Francisco, and he spoke English fawly well.
Mr. McGurre. He was not an expert in the English language?
Mr. Exuiorr. Oh, no; none of them are. I would not trust one of
them in the English language.
Mr. McGurre. He was the best you could get under the circum-
stances ?
Mr. Exxrorr. He was the best they have on the islands.
Mr. McGutre. I say, he was the best you could get ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; I believe he could understand what we wanted
him to ask; at least, we took great pains with him.
Mr. McGurre. You say there were none on the islands whom you
would trust so far as English is concerned ?
Mr. Exxiorr. If I were to go out on the street corner and talk
with them about the time of day, and such things, I guess they, per-
haps, could understand, that is, some of them; but I would not
trust a man there, as a native, in any sustained conversation, or in
any direct questioning. .
Mr. McGutre. Were you not able to secure some person who was
proficient in the English language and proficient in the native lan-
guage to assist you in taking that evidence ?
Mr. Exxiotr. There is no such white man on the islands.
Mr. McGurre. You state that as a fact?
Mr. Exxuiorr. Yes. I have got a better understanding of the
native language than any white man who was on the islands that
summer, and I would not trust myself.
Mr. McGurre. You would not trust yourself in their language?
Mr. Exxrott. No, sir.
Mr. McGurre. As long as you were there ?
Mr. Extrotr. No, sir. The Aleut language is the only one you can
trust them in; and I do not know anything about it. Their language
is the Aleut language.
Mr. McGuire. Do you make the statement now, for this record, |
that you have a better understanding of the English language and
their language than anyone to be found on the islands?
Mr. Exxrorrt. I do.
The CuarrMan. You mean a better understanding of the English
language than of the Aluet language?
Mr. Extrorr. I am not speaking of the Aleut language at all, but
of their patois. Because of my communication with them, and be-
cause I can speak the Russian language and their patois, I could get
closer to them than any man on the islands.
Mr. McGuire. You do not mean you could understand the English
language better than the other people?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 767
Mr. Extiorr. That is not the thing at all. I am speaking about
communicating with these people because I understand English as
well as anybody, plus a knowledge of the Russian language. No man
on the islands could talk Russian to these people when I was there.
Mr. McGutre. That is what I was talking about.
Mr. Exxrorr. But I could
Mr. McGurre (interposing). Taking it upon the whole, the two
languages together, you had a better ability for translating one to the
other ?
Mr. Extiorr. As far as the English and Russian went, but the
Aleut, no; I had no ability at all as far as the Aleut language is con-
cerned.
Mr. McGurrr. What language do they talk on the islands ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Aleut.
Mr. McGuire. And you have no understanding of that?
Mr. Extiotr. Not a word. I know but two words. I do not
know any more about it than you do; I am just as ignorant as you are.
Mr. McGuire. And they do not generally understand English ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Well, I would not trust them. They look wise,
smile, and agree with you; but that is not satisfactory to me.
Mr. McGuire. Do you mean to state that you could not get a
proficient interpreter on the islands ?
Mr. Exxrorr. I considered George Kochergin a proficient inter-
reter.
: The CuarrMan. Is that the man you had ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Yes, sir; I regard him as thoroughly well posted in the
business. I regarded him as having put these questions to them in
their own language, received replies in their own language, and inter-
preted them to us in turn in English. I considered it as being thor-
oughly done, and well done.
Mr. McGutre. I understood you to say a while ago you could not
find a competent person.
Mr. Exxiorr. I understood you to ask me about a ‘‘white”’ person,
and I said there was not a white person who could beat me in meeting
the natives on the islands.
Mr. McGurre. You said this man taked English fairly well ?
Mr. Exxiorr. He ought to; he was in San Francisco four or five
years and was educated there. He read English; he read our typed
questions to them, from our English copy, and then translated the
replies to us, and Mr. Gallagher took them down, the exact idioms and
words. He has got his notes.
Mr. McGutre. And when that was done the Government agents
were on the islands?
Mr. Ex.ioTtT. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. They were not with you?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I did not want them with me. I had good
reasons for not wanting them.
Mr. McGuire. You did not want them with you?
Mr. Exziorr. I did not want them with me, and you can easily
understand why I did not. It was not proper that they should be
with me. Do you want me to state why I did not want anybody
with me?
The Cuatrman. I think you might as well since you have volun-
teered to do it,
768 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiorr. Because I wanted the natives to speak without the
slightest pressure or influence or bias. I wanted them to speak their
minds without the slightest pressure, influence, or bias to us. I
have lived with them on the islands long enough to know what kinds
of pressure has been brought to bear on the natives by both lessees
and Government agents. RS
~ Mr. McGuire. You do not mean to say you have used pressure on
the natives ? .
Mr. Exurott. No; but I have seen pressure used; that is what I
mean. I have seen them suborned, bribed, and browbeaten.
Mr. McGuire. And in view of that knowledge
Mr. Exxiotr (interposing). I wanted them to be free from any
ossible influence.
Mr. McGuire. You did not want anybody present ?
Mr. Exziorr. Certainly not; anybody who might have any
influence on them. I want to say right here, that they spoke very
highly of Mr. Lembkey to us.
Mr. McGuire. Do you mean to say that the natives spoke highly
of Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. They were satisfied with him ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That is in the report. They found no fault with
him. That is what we wanted to get at, a free and unbiased expres-
sion,
Mr. McGuire. What did they have to say about the other repre-
sentatives of the Government ?
Mr. Exxiorr. We did not ask them any leading questions.
Mr. McGurre. I did not ask that. I asked you what they had to
say about the other representatives of the Government.
Mr. Exviiorr. Well, it is in the report.
Mr. McGurre. You did not ask them leading questions about Mr.
Lembkey, did you?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; they volunteered that.
Mr. McGurre. In your-manner of questioning those people were
your questions designed to suggest the answers ?
Mr. Exziorr. We tried to avoid that. We worked a whole day
over those questions so that we would not put leading questions.
They were not leading questions at all.
Mr. McGurre. That is what I am asking you, whether your ques-
tions were designed to get the answers you wanted ?
Mr. Exvxiorr. There was no design about any of the questions.
We worked hard over those questions in order to have them free from
any suggestion of bemg leading questions, and then when they
answered them we never went any further to have them qualify their
answers, or to draw them out, or to get them to explain, because that
would involve leading questions.
Mr. McGuire. I see. When they made an answer
Mr. E.xiorr (interposing). We stopped right there.
The CuarrMan. The fact is that personally I told Mr. Elhott and
Mr. Gallagher to be sure not to lead anybody into saying a thing to
them that was not true, that is, when they were among those unfor-
tunate people.
Mr. McGuire. I know; but they seem to have spoken highly of
Mr. Lembkey, and with that knowledge of Mr. Lembkey I wondered
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 769
whether he thought that Mr. Lembkey would exercise any pressure
on them ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; I did not know he would, or had; and I did not
want to raise that question with them.
Mr. McGuire. I understand.
Mr. Extiorr. And that is the reason I did not want him there.
And unless they suggested something of that sort I was not going to
suggest it to them.
Mr. McGurre.. Had you ever seen this interpreter before ?
Mr. Extiotr. I can not say that I ever had. I can not remember
him. When I was there in 1890 he must have been a child, a baby.
At least, I do not remember him.
Mr. McGuire. Was he the only native interpreter that you could
find on the islands ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Well, we asked the natives, and they all agreed that
he was the best one. That is all I know.
Mr. McGurre. That was the nature of his recommendations ?
Mr. Exvziorr. The universal recommendation among the natives
and, I might say, also the recommendation of the priest himself.
Mr. McGuire. Did you pay him for his services ?
Mr. Exrxiotr. We never made any agreement with him; but we
gave him $5, and I will tell you the circumstances under which we
gave him the $5. They had to heat up their hall, put coal into their
stove, and we thought we would pay them that much for their trouble.
Mr. McGurre. Now, then, Mr. Elliott, while you were there you
weighed 400 skins; is that right ?
Mr. Exxiotr. In salt; yes.
Mr. McGuire. What was your purpose in taking those weights ?
Mr. Exxiotrr. My purpose in Taine those weights was to establish
a fact which I had asserted under oath here, that when green skins
went into the salt house and were cured and packed for shipment
they weighed more than when green—that is, that when they left the
islands in salt and were cured they weighed more than when they
went in green and uncured. That was my purpose on the surface.
I had other purposes below which I did not allow anybody to know
about, and it was well I did not.
Mr. McGuire. Do you want the committee to know about it?
Mr. Exxiotr. The committee does understand it; it is in my report;
but it was not stated up on the islands.
Mr. McGuire. Now, let us get your purpose. You wanted to show
that a salted skin, after it had been salted and was all prepared for
shipment
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). And shipped ?
Mr. McGuire. And shipped, was lighter
Mr. Exviort (interposing). Heavier.
Mr. McGuire. Oh; was heavier than it was?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Than when green.
Mr. McGutre. When it was green ?
Mr. Ex.iottT. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. What did you want to know that for?
Mr. Exziorr. Because it was denied here under oath by witnesses
from the Bureau of Fisheries. J wanted to prove the truth and that
they had made a false statement to the committee, and I have.
53490—14—-49
770 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGurre. Are you properly quoting the witnesses for the -
Government ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I am. 3
Mr. MoGuire. I will ask you whether this was not their testimony:
That a salted skin was lighter, after it had been salted and remained
salted for some time
Mr. Exriorr Gnterposing). Four-or five days?
Mr. McGuire. And the salt then extracted from the skin than when
it was taken from the seal.
Mr. Exxtiotr. That was an afterthought of theirs. I deny
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Wait now. You say that was an
afterthought ?
Mr. Exxiotr. That was an afterthought.
Mr. McGuire. Was that the testimony of the departmental offi-
cials ?
Mr. Extiorr. I never disputed that; but that is not what
Mr. McGuire (interposing). You never disputed that? Now, let
‘us get your position; let us get that clear: That a skin after having
been taken from the seal and salted, shipped, and then the salt
extracted
Mr. Evxiorr Gnterposing). No; I deny
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Wait; I am asking you a question.
Then the salt extracted, and then that that skin is hghter than it
was when taken from the seal ?
Mr. Exxriotr. No; you have not stated my case at all.
Mr. McGuire. I xm asking you a questior.
Mr. Exvriotr. You have not stated my position.
Mr. McGuire. I will ask you again. After a skin has been salted,
when taken from a seal, and remained in salt, we will say, a definite
length of time, say, four weeks ——
Mr. Exriorr (interposing). No matter how long, until it is shipped.
Mr. McGuire. Then the salt extracted from the skin, the skin taken
out and the salt shaken off of it, is that skin then hghter cr heavier-———
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). I have never taken any such position.
Mr. McGuire. Than when taken from the salt ?
Mr. Exxrorr. That is a proposition that I know nothing about.
Mr. McGuire. You have never made any experiments with respect
to that matter ?
Mr. Exxtiorr. Yes; I weighed bundles in 1874, and I knew they
were heavier.
Mr. McGuire. You have not any opinion as to whether a skin when
salted, which has remained in salt for some time and then the salt
extracted, is lighter or heavier than when taken from the salt?
Mr. Extiotr. Oh, yes; I have had a very good opinion about that.
Mr. McGuire. What is that opinion ?
Mr. Exvuiotrr. It would be lghter, of course; but that is not what
I contend about.
Mr. McGutre. Well, that is what I wanted to know about.
Mr. Extiorr. Of course, that stands to reason.
Mr. McGurre. Has anybody testified before this committee, who
represented the Government, that a sealskin was lighter with the
salt on than it was when taken from the salt ?
Mr. Exiorr. They have testified here that the seals were lighter
when they got to London in the salt than they were when they left
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 771
the island when they went in green; that was the original testimony,
and I disputed it. Now, you have got me right. They testified ——
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Your statement now is, as I under-
stand it, that the agents of the Government testified that the skin
was lighter after it had been salted ?
Mr. Exrxiotr. And shipped.
Mr. McGuire. And shipped ?
Mr. Extiotr. When it got to London.
Mr. McGurre. Lighter than when it was taken from the salt ?
Mr. Erriotr. Yes; and I disputed it.
Mr. McGutire. Did you understand from that testimony that they
meant it was lighter with salt on it?
Mr. Evziotr. What else could they mean ?
Mr. McGurre. I am asking you what your understanding was.
Mr. Exziorr. Why, of course; that was the whole core of the
thing.
Mr. McGuire: Do you undertake to say that any Government
witness who testified here has intended to convey the idea to the
committee that a sealskin was lighter with the salt on—that is, the
salt required for shipment— after it had reached London than it was
when first taken from the salt ?
Mr. Ex.iotr: That is the testimony; it speaks for itself.
Mr. McGuire. [ am asking you about it.
Mr. Exrzictr. Yes; they made that statement at first.
The CHairMAN. Let us see where it is, if we can find it.
Mr. Exxiorr. It can be looked up.
Mr. McGuire. You may look it up later, and we can go on. Your
position is that the witnesses for the Government undertook to con-
vey that idea to the committee ?
Mr. Exvxiorr. Without doubt.
The Caarrman. Whom do you mean by the witnesses for the
Government ?
Mr. McGutre. Those who have testified here before the committee.
The CoarrMan. You mean Mr. Clark ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Dr. Evermann in chief.
Mr. McGutre. Dr. Evermann you understood to offer that kind of
evidence ?
Mr. Exvriorr. In chief; but he is not the only one.
Mr. McGurre. I am asking you about him specifically now.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Who else?
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, I do not know.
Mr. McGuire. How about Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Exxrorr. I do not think we got Mr. Lembkey caught on that.
Mr. McGuire. You do not think you got him caught on that?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; I do not think he is.
Mr. McGurre. You were out to catch somebody ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No, sir; they are catching themselves. Mr. Lemb-
key declared that he had weighed certain skins, and then he declared
he had not. Dr. Evermann declared he had weighed certain skins,
and we have never had any denial of his assertion. Then we have
got Dr. Evermann’s assertion that they went to work and swept all
the salt off of the skins and found them lighter, which is the condi-
tion I have met and have denied as being the salt weights when
leaving the islands.
772 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The GHATRMAN. I would suggest that if fet is to be gone over later
that we had better refresh your recollection.
Mr. Exxrorr. Mine is perfectly clear.
Mr. McGuire. I was going to look up the testimony and recur to
it a little later.
Mr. Exxiotr. That is the reason I made that experiment of weigh-
those skins on the islands.
. McGurre. You took the measurements of the skins?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Sunk McGuire. At the same time you weighed those skins on als
islands ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes. Just before we weighed them a measurement
was taken of the two skins, and then we weighed them immediately
afterwards.
Mr. McGurre. What measurement did you take ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Just length, the orthodox length.
Mr. McGurre. No breadth measure was taken ?
Mr. Exxiorr. It is not necessary and would be a waste of time.
Mr. McGurre. I| asked you if it was done.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; because it was not necessary and was a waste
of time; no one suggested it, even, at the time.
Mr. McGuire. Can you tell the size and area of a sealskin by
taking the length alone ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Tell the size?
Mr. McGuire. You can tell the size and area and all by taking the
length meaurement ?
Mr. Eturorr. The area is something that amounts to little or
nothing definite without the length. You get the size by the length,
and the area then is indicated at once by this length of a properly
salted sealskin.
Mr. McGurre. The weight is dependent upon two things?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir; I admit that.
Mr. McGuire. The size of the skin?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And the amount of blubber left on the skin?
Mr. Ervriorr. You are entirely right.
Mr. McGuire. The size of a skin, you say, can always be deter-
mined by the leneth?
Mr. Erziorr. Yes, of a properly salted skin.
Mr. McGuire. And that is the extent that you went at that time?
Mr. Exvviorr. Yes
Mr. McGurrr. To determine the size of the skin?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And when you speak of the measurement of the
pe in your testimony you refer only to the measurement of the
ength ?
Mr. Exxiotr. The size.
Mr. McGurre. I say. when you speak of the size of the skins you
refer only to the length?
Mr. Exvxiorr. Yes; and that governs the size.
Mr. McGuire. And that was the only measurement you took?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes: that was the only one because it governed the
size absolutely in the London classifications. I will explain some-
thing right here so that you can understand it. In the London
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 1773
XN
classifications, for instance, for the “‘small pups”’ they allow a
sliding scale of 4 inches to cover the size of tne “‘smalt pups” in
length, and they allow a sliding scale of 2 inches for the girth, in taking
the measurements.
Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by a siding scale?
Mr. Erzriorr. From 34 inches down to 30, every skin which meas-
ures that im length, goes into the classification of “small pups.”
Mr. McGuire. Then a small pup skin, according to their measure-
ments in London, might be 4 inches longer than another?
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And it also might be 2 inches broader than another?
Mr. Euiiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And then it goes in the smal! pup classification ?
Mr. Ex.tiorr. Yes, that is so; it would be a freak skin if it were 2
inches broader again, or say, 4 inches broader than the type.
Mr. McGuire. But that would go into the ‘“‘small pup” classifi-
cation ?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes, it would, even then.
Mr. McGuire. Then the reverse of that would be true?
Mr. Exxiotr. No.
Mr. McGuire. That a skin 4 inches shorter than another skin and
2 inches narrower than another skin would go into the small pup
classification ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Undoubtedly they would put them there.
Mr. McGurre. Have you ever taken a skin of that kind and com-
puted the number of square inches of difference in the two skins?
Mr. Exriotr. Yes, it is very slight; you do not need to com-
pute it.
Mr. McGuire. Have you determined the number of square inches
difference in the size of those skins—have you ever done that?
Mr. Exzriotr. Yes; it does not amount to anything, and that is the
reason I did not do it when busy over the 400 skins last summer.
Mr. McGuire. Well, suppose that one skin is 38 inches long, and
that it is 22 inches in width?
Mr. Evxiotr. That is a freak.
Mr. McGuire. Well, suppose that is true?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, yes; you might stretch something out of size,
but the instant it was discovered it would go into the proper classi-
fication.
Mr. McGuire. If a skin is 38 inches long, how wide would it
probably be?
Mr. Exziorr. About 26 inches.
Mr. McGuire. Well, we will take that, as that is not a freak ?
Mr. Exxuiorr. No; but that would be if a skin 30 inches long—I
think you said 38 inches?
Mr. McGuire. How wide ought that to be?
Mr. Exxiorr. That ought to be about 26 inches wide or 28 inches
wide.
Mr. McGurre. Thirty-eight inches long and 28 inches wide?
Mr. Exrxiorr. Yes; 26 to 28 inches, that ought to be its average
girth—26 inches.
Mr. McGurre. We will take another skin, 34 imches long and 26
inches wide. Would that be in the same classification ?
Mr. Exiiorr. Yes; 34 inches and 26 would go into small pups.
774 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGutre. And you think there would not be any difference
in the square inches of that kind of a skin?
Mr. Erxictr. No, not much; I know it; between 34 by 26 length
and girth, and 34 by 24 length and girth, there is very little.
Mr. MoGurre. Mr. Eliott, were those skins in the green, as taken
from the salt, measured by twos or individually ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Mr. Lembkey weighed them individually, and we took
his individual weights without question; 1. e., his “green” weights.
Mr. McGuire. He measured them individually ?
Mr. Exiiorr. No; wait a minute. He weighed them together in
the salt, but we measured them individually July 29, 1913; he weighed
them individually when he killed the seals July 7, 1913.
Mr. McGuire. Isee. He weighed those skins individually ?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes; and we took his weights without question—
his green weights.
Mr. McGuire. You took his green weights ?
Mr. Exxriorr. Without question; yes.
Mr. McGuire. When he weighed them green he salted them ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Yes, sir; afterwards.
Mr. McGurre. You found them in the salt house?
Mr. Extiort. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And you took them out. Did you shake the salt off ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; the natives handled those skins just as they
have always handled them, and had handled them for 20 years.
Mr. McGurre. State just how they handled them.
Mr. Extiorr. Well, let me give you a description. You want me
to start right in, so I will not have to repeat all of this.
Mr. McGuire. I want it just as briefly as you can state it, just how
you handled them in the salt house. *
Mr. Extiorr. They just pulled them out of the salt, when we got
ready to go to work.
Mr. McGuire. Did they raise them up ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Oh, yes.
Mr. McGuire. One at a time?
Mr. Exxiorr. You know they would pull a skin out and throw it
in a pile of loose, salted skins like it, at the head of the salter’s bench
on the salthouse floor, keeping 50 or 60 such skins in that pile all the
time we worked.
Mr. McGuire. And some of the salt would naturally fall off ?
Mr. Exxiortr. Yes, sir; quite a bit.
Mr. McGuire. They laid the larger skins down, did they not?
Mr. Exvxiorr. When we began there, a native stood at the head of
the table who would pick one of these skins up and out ofthe pile; he
would first select a large skin; he would lay that upon the table (a
bench table about the size of this committee table), flesh side up to
us; spread it out for us; Mr. Hatton and I then made the measure-
ment of this skin from head to tail; we call its tagged number out,
and its length, and it would be recorded by Mr. Gallagher and Mr.
Clark, as well as by Mr. Whitney, who kept the official green weight,
or Lembkey tag list, of this lot of 400 skins.
Mr. McGurre. And then they threw the salt on?
Mr. Exvuiorr. No. Then that skin, after being measured and the
green weights of Mr. Lembkey’s tallied with the number on it, was
passed by this native who had picked it up to another native; he
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA, 775 ~
put it on a pile of salt in a kench or bin, right beside the table; this
salter’s bench or table, stood like this [indicating]; we worked here,
and that salt kench was right there [indicating]; then, after the green
weight had been recorded and this measurement taken, a smaller
skin than this one first picked up was picked up in turn by the same
native and put on the table in the same way, then measured, and
then passed over to the native in the kench, who would pass his hand
over the larger skin this way [indicating] and he would then throw
a handful or two of salt upon it and then put this smaller skin on top
oi that larger skin, flesh to flesh, roll the edges up, and “‘bundle”’ it.
Then that ‘“‘bundle’’ was handled in this way: The native who
bundled the skin would pass it to Mr. Hatton; Mr. Hatton would
put it on the scales, and Mr. Clark and Mr. Gallagher would note the:
weight, and then simultaneously make the entries; if they disagreed
they would cover it in on the list all right before going further.
Mr. McGurre. Now, did the same men resalt each of those skins ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; they changed men. There were 9 or 10 native
sealers, and they took turns; so that they worked as they had
worked in the salt house for 20 years.
Mr. McGuire. Did they have a scoop or anything else that held a
uniform amount. of salt ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; they never salt that way.
Mr. McGurre. They just promiscuously——
Mr. Exiiotr (interposing). Itis a matter of judgment and ex-
perience.
Mr. McGuire. I see. They promiscuously took their hands and
threw on the salt ?
Mr. Exziorr. Not so ‘‘promiscuously.” They do it with judg-
ment. If askin has “welts” in it that are ‘‘raw,” or if a skin shows
pink “‘lips,” or anything of that kind, they will rub in more salt—
use a little more.
Mr. McGutre. They use more salt in some cases than in others ?
Mr. Extrorr. Yes; due entirely to the condition of the skin when
they are bundling it.
Mr. McGutrre. Then they will take two skins from the salt, weigh
them, and put on a quantity of salt in preparation for shipment ?
Mr. Exiiorr. And they have always done that for 20 years.
Mr. McGurre. And then they take two more, and by reason of
the condition of those skins they may require a greater or less quan-
tity of salt ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That runs all through, and it averages up.
Mr. McGuire. Is that right ?
Mr. Exxiort. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. So there is more salt used in some cases than in
- others ?
Mr. Evxiorr. Yes; it varies. So when you get 400 skins you
average up pretty well. You get a pretty nice average when you get
40) skins. If you were only taking a half dozen skins, or taking out
a few skins, it would be different.
Mr. McGuire. You would get an average in 400 skins, but under
no circumstances would you get just the same quantity of salt on
the various skins ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No.
776 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGurre. There is a difference of salt on every skin ?
M:. Exurorr. Yes; on every skin.
Mr. McGuire. When you were salting those 400 skins you were
doing it for a specific purpose, to find out the relative weights; that is,
the difference in the weights when they were taken out and when they
reached their destination ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; when they left the islands.
Mr. McGuire. Do you regard that method, the method you used,
as a means by which you can accurately tell the difference ?
Mr. Evxiorr. Well, it speeks for itself. Of course, it is accurate.
Mr. McGuire. But you state that there is a positive difference in
the quantity of salt on each skin ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Now then, do you not think that if you had wanted
to get the real difference the better plan for you would have been to
have weighed the actual quantity of salt put on those skins ?
Me. Exvuiorr. You could not do it before bundling.
M-. McGuire. Why do you say you can not do it?
Mr. Exvxiorr. You can not do it. You have got to put the two
together, and then how could you separately weigh the amount of
salt on each skin ?
Mr. McGuire. I say that is one reason why you can not get it
accurately.
Mr. Extrorr. But it is accurate when you weigh the two together
in the bundle. It shows the weight when they left the islands.
Mr. McGuire. If you are going to salt them for shipment——
Mr. Eviiorr (interposing). You have got to use two.
Mr. McGurre (continuing). If you are going to salt them for ship-
ment, the only way for you to tell accur: ately anything about it
would be to weigh the amount of salt put on “those skins?
Mr. Exuiorr. We have weighed it; it is in the bundles and it
speaks for itself.
Mr. McGuire. You have the weight of the salt ?
Mr. Evuiorr. Yes; in each bun dle, and accurately recorded.
The Cuarrman. Is not this the fact, that the skins were weighed
when green ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Yes.
The CuarrmMan. And weighed after they were salted ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir.
The CHarrMan. Would not that show ?
Mr. Exxriorr. That shows the actual difference.
The CuarrMANn. Would not that determine the weight of the salt ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; and we have got the skins that will speak for
themselves.
The CuarRMAN. You were asked, in the methods you used, whether
the salting was not done under your direction, or under the direction °
of Mr. Lembkey ?
Mr. Exuiorr. No; the natives did it, just as they have done it for
20 years past, without any suggestion or interference by me or Mr.
Lembkey.
The CuarrmMan. I thought Mr. McGuire was under the impression
that you did the salting.
Mr. Eviiorr. He may have been, but Mr. Lembkey had no more
to do with it that I had, and I had nothing to do with it. The natives
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 777
did it in their own way, without any suggestion whatever from us
and as they have always done it for the past 20 years.
Mr. McGuire. What I am trying to bring out is that although these
skins were salted for a specific purpose, they were salted in the
usual way ?
Mr. Exriotr. In the regular way.
Mr. McGurre. But bein ng salted for a specific purpose, the only
way to get the accurate weights would have been to determine the
salt not that Lembkey put on them, but that they put on them at
that time.
The CuarrmMAn. I know; but I do not think it was done for this
one specific purpose.
Mr. Exxrorr. It was done to show the exact amount of salt used
in curing when they left the islands.
Mr. McGuire. But you did not weigh the salt that you put on
them ?
Mr. Exvxiotr. Certainly I did; it is weighed in the bundles.
Mr. McGuire. At the time you put it on?
Mr. Exriotr. Yes, immediately afterwards; they were weighed
immediately after the salt was put on.
Mr. McGuire. The green weights were taken ?
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And then Mr. Lembkey had salted them ?
Mr. Exziorr. No; he did not salt them; the natives salted them
for shipment.
Mr. McGuire. Well, were they salted at the time the green weights
were taken ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, I was not there then, July 7, 1913, but the
official record says they were, but I know they were taken out of salt,
July 29, 1913.
Mr. McGuire. They were salted when you took them from the salt ?
Mr. Exxrort. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. Somebody had salted them ?
Mr. E1siorr. Yes, sir. They shook the salt off and put some on.
I do not know how much they shook off.
Mr. McGuire. Prior to the time of shipment they were salted twice ?
Mr. Extiorr. No; you do not get that right.
Mr. McGuire. Maybe Ido not. Did you find them salted ?
Mr. Exxrorr. They were in the salt.
Mr. McGuire. Then they had been salted ?
Mr. Evuiort. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. They had been salted—is that true?
Mr. Exxiort. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Then you had them taken out, and before you
shipped them you had them resalted ?
Mr. Exuiorr. They had to be; they always
Mr. McGurre. (interposing). I am asking you if you did?
Mr. Exxiortr. The natives did.
Mr. McGuire. Did you have it done?
Mr. Extrorr. Why, certainly.
Mr. McGurre. Then from the time they had been taken from the
salt had there been salt applied to those skins twice ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. They always do.
778 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I asked you awhile ago, and you said
no.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is a regular rule; there is no difference.
Mr. McGuire. I am asking you whether they were not salted twice ?
Mr. Exurotr. They always. are.
Mr. McGutre. I asked you whether you had weighed the quantity
of salt you put on them.
Mr. Exriorr. That the natives put on?
Mr. McGuire. That you had put on?
Mr. Exxtiorr. I did not have it put on.
Mr. McGuire. Well, it was done, and did you have that salt
weighed ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Certainly; it is in the bundles; it is recorded there,
every ounce of it.
Mr. McGurre. Did you have the salt weighed, that you put on
those skins at that time, separately from the skins ?
Mr. Exxtiotr. No; that is nonsensical.
Mr. McGurre. You understand my question ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Why, certainly.
Mr. McGuire. And you say it was perfectly nonsensical to do it?
Mr. Exxiorr. Of course it would be nonsensical to attempt such a
thing as that.
Mr. McGuire. I am simply asking whether you did it ?
Mr. Exvuiorr. It was futile, and foolish to attempt such a thing,
and a waste of time to arrive at the same end if it had been and
could be accurately done.
Mr. McGuire. Did'the Government ever allow the North American
Sealing Co. any rebates on account of the company being prohibited
from taking the required number of seals ?
Mr. Exxriotr. Yes; it did; and Secretary Carlisle said it was in
violation of the law and ordered it refunded, and they had a big suit.
Mr. McGurre. Did you indorse the action of the Government in
allowing those rebates ?
Mr. Exuiorr. No; only in regard to the rental; not as to the skins.
Mr. McGuire. With respect to the rentals ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. Just what did you do?
Mr. Exuiotr. I said the rental ought to be reduced in proportion
to the catch that they took.
Mr. McGurre. In what way did you recommend that?
Mr. Exvuiorr. Well, I do not remember exactly. I have an in-
distinct recollection
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Did you write any letters to Secretary
Carlisle ?
Mr. Exriorr. I do not think I wrote a letter; I think it was oral.
I remember making the suggestion, but I think it was to Secretary
Windom; I do not think I ever spoke to Secretary Carlisle about it.
I never had anything to do with Mr. Carlisle concerning that quesiaar
Mr. Windom asked me what he should do with these eople.
said, ‘‘You see, they will have to pay rent if I take ee off ie
islands.”’ I said, ‘‘ Why not make a rebate on the rental?”’ That is
the way it came about. I said, ‘ Let them take a few skins if they
have to stay there.” But I did not want them on the islands at all; [
wanted them dropped entirely.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 779
Mr. McGurre. You wanted the company removed ?
Mr. Evuiorr. Entirely; and I recommended that in my report.
Mr. McGurre. When did you make that recommendation ?
Mr. Exxiott. J will read it to you. Itisin my report of November
17, 1890, which is as follows (House Doc. 175, 54th Cong., 1st sess.,
pp. 136-138), to wit: ;
The condition of the Pribilov rcokeries to-day is such as to make the following
imperative demands upon our Government, if they are to be saved, as they should be,
from speedy ruin:
First. That no young male seals whatsoever shall be killed on these islands as a
source of revenue, either to the public Treasury or to private corporations, for the
next seven years, 1. e., during the seasons of 1891-1898, inclusive.
This step is imperative: There was scarcely a drop of young male blood in service
on the breeding grounds of either St. Paul or St. George throughout the reproductive
season of 1890. There are no young bulls left to speak of, on these hauling grounds,
above the 1 and 2-year-old grades—very few of the latter, and not many of the former,
It will take at least five years of perfect rest for the scanty stock now left of this
character in which to mature so as to serve on these breeding grounds; and it will be
two years after this new service is first rendered before the appreciable gain can be
well seen; and, in this necessary period of five years’ growth not more than one-half
of these young bulls thus maturing can be estimated as certain to survive the attacks
of their natural enemies at sea—sharks, killer whales, etc.
Second. That all pelagic sealing in the waters of Bering Sea be prohibited and sup-
ante throughout the breeding season, no matter how, so that it is done, and done
quickly.
This step is equally imperative. The immorality of that demand made by the open-
water sealer to ruin within a few short years and destroy forever these fur-bearing inter-
ests on the Pribiloy Islands—the immorality of this demand can not be glossed over by
any sophistry. The idea of permitting such a chase to continue where 5,000 female
seals, heavy with their unborn young, or busy with nursing offspring, are killed in
order to secure every 1,500 skins taken, is repugnant to the sense of decency.and the
simplest instincts of true manhood. I can not refrain from expressing my firm belief
that if the truth is known, made plain to responsible heads of the civilized powers of
the world, that not one of these Governments will hesitate to unite with ours in closing
Bering Sea and the Pacific passes of the Aleutian Chain to any and all pelagic fur
sealing during the breeding season of that animal.
li these two steps are taken next year, and a perfect rest established throughout the
breeding seasons on the islands, and in the waters of Bering Sea, for the next seven
years, inclusive, then the restoration of these sadly diminished interests to their good
form of 1872-1874 will have been well advanced, if not wholly realized by the expira-
tion of the season of 1893.
Then, with revised and proper regulations for driving and killing, the twentieth
century may open with another era of commercial prosperity for these islands, with
pleasure and profit for those of us not only at home, but all over the world where fine
furs are worn and valued.
In taking these two steps the Government can not divide the responsibility; it
must assume the entire order and conduct of affairs on these seal islands of Alaska for
the next seven years. The new lessees of 1890 should have a fair rebate. They are
not to blame in any sense whatsoever for the present condition of the rookeries and
hauling grounds; not at all. They can not be asked to nurse these shriveled rookeries
into shape; to feed and clothe the natives, and maintain an establishment on these
islands for that purpose during this necessary period of rest; and if they offered to do
it, this offer, for obvious reason, should be refused.
The skins of a few thousand yearlings and pups which the natives may safely kill
under order of the Secretary of the Treasury every year for food and clothing, just as
they killed them in 1834-1843, inclusive, will, when sold by the Secretary of the
Treasury, fully meet the cost of caring for these dependent properly, and enable them
to live just as comfortably as they have been living. These food skins can be annually
brought down to market on the revenue cutters, and these vessels can bring up the
supplies of food, fuel, and clothing necessary for the natives after their purchase in
due form by the Treasury Department.
The new lessees of 1890 in full belief, and warranted by official reports in believing,
that they would get at least 60,000 prime skins in the first season and annually more
thereafter, during the period of their contract, purchased the entire land plant of the
old lessees, i. e., the salt houses, dwelling and schoolhouses, barns, stores and goods,
780 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
and divers chattels, and paid for it, together with the 81 small dwelling houses which
the old company built for the natives’ occupation—about $65,000. Those people have
lived in these cottages, rent free, during the last 18 years, and do live in them now,
under the same privilege, repairs and paint being aiso furnished gratis.
Under the present changed order of affairs the Government needs at once part of
this plant above recited at least, and, for that matter, should not hesitate to take it
entirely off the hands of the new lessees as the condition of the business now stands;
also the money paid on account of the native houses should be promptly refunded by
the Government to the new lessees, for, as I have said, there can not be any division
of responsibility in the coming change of nursing these exhausted rookeries back to
good order. The work has got to be entirely free from any and all suspicion of private
and intrigue and gain during the next seven years, or it had better not be undertaken.
This will require the removal of everybody from these islands except the natives and
the Government officers and employees. These resident men should consist of the
existing staff of four Treasury agents, a physician for each island, and a school-teacher
and storekeeper also, in each village, including a mess cook, and la ndryman.
On account of the remoteness of their situation, those officers and employees of the
Government should be housed on these islands and supplied with rations and fuel
free of cost to themselves, otherwise the enforced abnormal expense of living there
would render their salaries absurdly inadequate. These suppiies can be regularly
purchased in San Francisco every spring by the collector of customs of that port ~
and sent up to the seal islands on the revenue cutters which annually have cruised
and will cruise around about them throughout each coming season.
While the Secretary of the Treasury is fully empowered by existing law, I believe
to take any or all steps necessary to preserve and protect these interests of the Govern-
ment on the seal islands of Alaska, yet the passage of a bill substantially like the follow-
ing draft will save him from some misunderstanding and doubt in the minds of our
people as to the precise limit of his authority. He also needs the authority of law
for the establishment of the school-teachers, physicians, etc.
By unanimous consent a recess was taken until 2 o’clock p. m.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Housr OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Saiurday, March 14, 1914.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
TESTIMONY OF MR. HENRY W. ELLIOTT—Continued.
The CHarrMAN. Mr. McGuire, you may proceed.
Mr. McGuire. What was the date of the report from which you
read yesterday ?
Mr. Exxiorr. November 17, 1890, to Secretary William Windom.
Mr. McGuire. If you made any recommendation with respect to
the allowance of rebates to the company by the Government, what
was that recommendation ?
Mr. Extiorr. That they should have a rebate on that rental, not
to pay in full the annual rental of $60,000, because they expected to
get 60,000 seals and they only got 20,000 seals. As they were to be
taken off the islands on my recommendation, I said it was not fair
to collect this entire sum; that evidently they promised to pay
$60,000 for the annual rental of the islands with the full understand-
ing that they were to get 60,000 seals annually, and, therefore, failing
to get 60,000 seals, and only getting 20,000, it seemed to me that if
they were to be removed that they ought not to pay a full year’s
rental.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 781
The CHarrMAN. You mean, for the skins they did not get?
Mr. Exrrorr. Yes; | suggested a rebate of that rental m propor-
tion to the catch they did not get; in other words, pay only one-third
of that rental.
d Mr. McGuire. Was that about the time of the expiration of the
ease ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Oh, this was the new lease, and in the very first
months of their work; you see, I stopped them.
Mr. McGuire. In 1890?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Yes; they had not been on the islands only a few
weeks before I stopped them.
Mr. McGuire. You were then in the employ of the Government ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; under the authority of this special act, passed
April 5, 1890, and approved April 7.
Mr. McGuire. Did you know that that rebate was made by the
Government ?
Mr. Exriotr. I have never followed that through, because the chain
of events that followed so swiftly after that, took me out entirely
from any connection with the Government, and five or six months
after that I was out of the service of the Government by my own
volition.
Mr. McGurre. I will ask you if, as a matter of fact, you do not
know that.it was paid and that the Government later recovered the
money ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; the Government did not recover the full rental.
I believe the Government finally took it into court, and that the
Government lost that claim for the entire rental, but did gain its
claim for the full skin tax and bonus; I never suggested that this skin
tax and bonus on each skin taken by them should be rebated—quite
to the contrary.
Mr. McGurre. Does not the record show that the Government
won the case ?
Mr. Evutiotr. No; they, the .essees, won on the rental.
Mr. McGuire. I do not so understand.
Mr. Extrorr. But the Government won on the skin tax and bonus.
I speak from personal knowledge, because I came in contact with that
end of the business. (See pp. 942, 943, 944, hearing No. 14,1912.)
The Cuarrman. Well, the record speaks for itself.
Mr. McGuire. Of course. Now, after you had made that recom-
mendation did you ever have any correspondence with representatives
of the company ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, yes; I had a good deal of correspondence with
Mr. Tevis in which I was urging him to drop this attempt to kill seals
and allow a closed time on the islands for seven years and remove his
people from there. I had quite a good deal of correspondence with
Mr. Tevis and Mr. Mills about that.
Mr. McGurre. Was that all you corresponded with them about ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That is all. It ran over 12 or 14 letters, and as
Mr. Tevis and Mr. Mills are dead, I do not want to bring those letters
in unless they choose to do it.
Mr. McGuire. I will ask you whether you wrote to Mr. Mills on
March 31, 1891 ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, I did.
Mr. McGuire. Do you recall what you wrote about ?
782 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SHAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exvurotr. Yes; I urged him to agree to a suspension of that
killing. That was the purpose of my letter.
Mr. McGuire. I have here a copy of letter dated March 31, 13891,
purporting to be a letter written by Henry W. Elhott to D. O. Mills,
15 Broad Street, New York, which reads as follows:
Dear Sir: I know I have been repeatedly represented as working to injure your
interests on the seal islands, but I have felt certain that as soon as my report was pub-
lished you would at once recognize the untruth of the charge and respect me all! the
move.
But my report has not yet been published, because after a consultation with Mr.
Blaine I freely left it in his own hands to use in his own time and manner during the
pending negotiations, for, unless he can do something to stop this raid of open-water
sealers, then there is no use in our attempting to save the seal life by new regulations
on the islands.
Mr. Evxiotr. Quite right; entirely right, sir.
Mr. McGuire (reading):
In the first place, I told Mr. Blaine that the Canadians would not believe my state-
ments; that they would simply regard me as having made up a case of distress to
aid him in his argument of injury done. Therefore, I urged that he invite them to
visit the islands and see the truth for themselves. This he has done, and I hope that
the President and Mr. Blaine will select one or two competent good men to meet the ©
British agents in behalf of our Government. When this commission has gone care-
fully over the field next summer it will find that I have been conservative and accu-
rate in my work.
Mr. Extiorr. This is it; this is the work [indicating].
Mr. McGuire (reading):
In anticipation of the visit of that commission, I inclose for your information a brief
epitome of the status of the seal life as I found it in 1872-1874 and again 16 years later,
last summer; and I am quite confident that as you read through it you will be im-
pressed with the gravity of the danger which confronts the perpetuation of these fur
seal rookeries.
Assuming that pelagic sealing would be checked when I finished my report last
December, it seemed to me only right that during the period of restoration of these
shattered interests that the Government should make a full rebate of rental, assume
the full cost of feeding, clothing, houses and fuel for the natives, school teachers and
physicians; then when killing could be resumed the company could come right for-
ward and again assume these charges; also, the time lost from the period of the lease
could be made up by a special act of Congress, and it would be done as all fairness and
equity suggested it.
Very sincerely, your friend and servant,
-
Henry W. Exziorr.
D. O. Mits, Esq.,
15 Broad Street, New York.
The CHArRMAN. Is the original in existence ?
Mr. Erxiorr. That is my letter; that is right.
The CuarrMAN. [I want to know whether the original is in existence ?
Mr. McGurre. I do not know; but I think it is.
The CHarrMAN. Do you know where it is?
Mr. McGuire. The department would have it, I think.
The CHarrMAN. Here ?
Mr. McGurre. | think so.
Mr. Extrorr. Itis right in this report of mine, November 17, 1890—
i. e., those very words are in that report. I have recited my report in
his letter in advance to him.
The CuarrMaNn. If the original is in existence, I would like to look
at it?
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Elliott, you changed your mind about
those gentlemen ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 788
Mr. Exxiorr. I had to. J was assuming when I wrote this letter
you recite that those men had been misled into taking up this lease
with the understanding that there were 100,000 seals ahead of them
there to get, and that they had been cut down to 60,000 by an arbi-
trary ruling.
Mr. McGuire. You were assuming that they had been misled ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Whom did you assume misled them ?
Mr. Exiiorr. I will tell you. I assumed that George R. Tingle did.
Mr. McGuire. Who it he?
Mr. Exvxrorr. He was their general manager.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether he was connected with the
company ?
Mr. Exxiotr. He was their general manager at the time. He was
the one who helped get them the lease.
Mr. McGuire. Was he a stockholder in the company ?
Mr. Exziotr. No; he was associated with Senator Elkins, who
soon became a stockholder.
Mr. McGuire. And in what way was he associated with Senator
Elkins ?
Mr. Exurotr. Before the lease was awarded to this company, he
was associated with Senator Elkins in urging the Secretary of the
Treasury to give the lease to another company, of which Elkins
yas one of the stockholders; but that company did not bid as high
as this company, the North American Commercial Co. Then they
got into an agreement whereby Mills, Liebes & Tevis, representing
the North American Commercial Co., united with Elkins and his
associates, and went in together, with the understanding that George
R. Tingle should be the general manager.
‘ Mr. McGuire. Where did you get that information ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, that is all in detail in my testimony before the
Ways and Means Committee of this House, given January 14-28, 1907.
Mr. McGuire. Whose testimony ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Mine. It is all in print.
Mr. McGuire. Where did you get it?
Mr. Exxiotr. I got it from these men.
Mr. McGurrz. From what men?
Mr. Exxiotr. Tingle himself.
Mr. McGuire. Where is Tingle now?
Mr. Extiorr. He is dead.
Mr. McGuire. Whom else did you get it from ?
Mr. Exxiortr. It is a long story; it would take me a week to tell
you all the details.
Mr. McGurre. Is there anyone living from whom you got that
story ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Unfortunately I can not think of anybody. Gen.
Jeffries is dead; Mr. Hutchinson is dead; Dr. McIntyre is dead. He
expected to have been retained as ‘general manager” or “‘superin-
tendent,”’ and he told me most of it.
Mr. McGuire. So far as you know now all persons who talked to
you about that are dead ?
Mr. Exxiorr. So far as I know at this moment. It may be I can
recall somebody.
784 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Elliott, what did you mean by this para-
graph of this letter: ;
Also the time lost from the period of the lease could be made up by a special act
of Congress, and it would be done as all fairness and equity suggested it.
Mr. Exxiorr. I will tell you just what I meant, because when I
first made this report, Mr. Windom said it would be impossible for
him to cancel that lease during these negotiations, and then renew it
afterwards. That the best way to do would be to get these men to
agree to a suspension of their work for six or seven years, as I recom-
mended; and then, if the Canadians in that time did agree to suspend
pergic sealing, and we did get an agreement to that effect, it might
e that they could resume killing on land. I myself never believed
they could, but I was perfectly willing to let the events work out
themselves, assuming that if at the end of the seven years it was
proper to renew the killing under the leasing system, it would be
developed.
Mr. McGuire. Well, you have not told me yet; you have not
answered my question. What was your purpose in making the
recommendation? What did you have in mind when you made a
recommendation like this ?—
Also the time lost from the period of the lease could be made up by a special act
of Congress.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, because I understood from the conversations
I had with Mr. Blaine and Mr. Windom that if they wholly suspended
the lease for seven years, and then if the lessees resumed, they would
have to have an act of Congress to warrant them in that action.
The CHarrMAN. I do not want to lead you, but I am under the
impression that a moment ago you either suggested or stated that
you were working to get a closed season and to get them to stop
illing altogether on land.
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; I thought that they would be willing if they
understood the truth in my report. You know they were strangers
to me; I had never seen them or heard of them before; they were
suddenly stopped by me, more than by any one man, in killing seals;
and therefore I felt, out of all fairness to them, that if they fully
understood the thing, they would respect me and agree with me.
And I asked by Mr. Windom to unofficially address these men in that
way and get a fair, unofficial expression of opinion from them.
Mr. SrEPHENsS. At that time did you hold any Government position?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; but five or six months after, I separated myself
from the Government. When I wrote that, Mr. Windom had died.
Mr. McGurre. You did not intend this letter to be in any way a
bid for employment ?
Mr. Exxuiorr. No; my soul, no.
Mr. McGuire. You were not at that time in the employ of the
Government ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; but a few weeks later I was not.
Mr. McGuire. Whatever employment you had with the former
seal company was that
Mr. Exviotr (interposing). That was as an arbitrator.
Mr. McGuire. What is the name of that company ?
Mr. Exxiorr. The Alaska Commercial Co.
Mr. McGuire. That had ended and the company——
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 785
Mr. Extriorr (interposing). Oh, whatever ‘‘employment” I had
with them I never solicited; they came to me. I was trying to get
these men (Mills and Tevis) to understand about the matters that
were then being held up from the public and in my report; this report
of November 17, 1890, which contains the very words you read; they
were in my official recommendation, which I inserted in this record
yesterday. I assumed that Mr. Mills and Mr. Tevis, the latter,
who, by the way, I met in San Francisco, and who came to my room
the night I left the city, the day after I] arrived, and where we had
a nice
Mr. STEPHENS (interposing). What year was that?
Mr. Exxiotr. 1890. I wanted to show these men that I had no
hostility toward them; that I was not a ‘‘conspirator,” ‘‘hired by the
old company”; that I was doing this thing for the best interest of the
Government, and that theirs must be auheidlniy and that as good
citizens they must agree with me. And, therefore, being an entire
st-anger to every one of them, never having seen any of them in
1890, May 6, when I went up to the islands (for the first time since
1876), except Liebes—nobody connected with the fur-seal business
could have gotten into San Francisco or out of it without seeing him—
but never haying seen any of these other stockholders, and having
stopped them in their work, and hearing myself denounced im the
papers by them as ‘‘a conspirator,” ‘‘hired by the old lessees,” etc., I
f-]t I would like to come in touch with them, and let them understand
fully what L[hadin view. I always had had this opinion of D. O. Mills:
‘That he was a man of high character. I felt at that time that he had
been misled, if any man had been. My friends all told me, ‘‘If Mr.
Mills understands this thing, Mr. Elhott, he will agree with you,’”’ and
that caused me to write that letter, being simply a review, in short
words, of my report to Mr. Windom. Mr. Windom was dead, and I
soon (Apr. 22, 1891) separated myself from the Government after I
wrote that letter, because I would not follow Mr. Blaine or Mr.
Foster in what I considered malfeasance.
Mr. McGuire. You thought Mr. Blaine was guilty of official mal-
feasance ?
Mr. Exxiotr. I have put that charge of mine in this testimony; it
is all in detail. I do not “think” so; I have proved it was so. (See
pp. 662-672, hearing No. 10, Apr. 24, 1912; and pp. 304, 305, hearing
No. 1, Jan. 17, 1914.)
Mr. McGuire. And you thought Mr. Foster was, too?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; that is in the testimony also, and I have proved
it. That is the reason I separated myself from the Government’s
employ. (See pp. 662-668, hearing No. 10, 1912; pp. 304-314, hear-
m2 No. 1, Jan. 17, 1914.)
Mr. McGuire. I believe you stated that Mr. Tingle was a member
of the last company ?
Mr. Exxiotr. He was their “general manager.’’ He had been
a United States Treasury agent for five or six years, and that is where
he cot his knowledge of the seals.
Mr. McGuire. I do not care anything about that. As a member
of that company. ;
Mr. Exxiotr (interposing.) Not as a member but as an official of
the company. I do not think he held any stock.
Mr. McGuire. You do not think he did ?
53490—14——_50
786 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; he was their general manager, hired at a salary
of $10,000.
Mr. McGuire. Do you think they would put in a general manager
who did not have any interest ¢
Mr. Evriorr. I know that Dr. McIntyre held no stockholders’ in-
terest in the old company; at least, he told me so.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whether Mr. Tingle had any stock
in the company ?
Mr. Exriotr. I never understood that he had; I understood that he
was simply their general manager.
Mr. McGuire. He was the only salaried man from whom you got
that information ?
Mr. Evurotr. No; I never investigated it; I have not thought it
worth while. It was a matter immaterial and irrelevant.
Mr. McGuire. Now, I believe your statement Bestend ang was that
you were never employed by the Alaska Commercial Co. ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; I had no contract.
The CuarrMan. Well, now, Mr. McGuire, do you want to go over
the same thing again ?
Mr. McGuire. Only in part; not over the same thing, but I want
to recur to one of the statements made by Mr. Elhott yesterday.
The CuarrMan. You see, I look at that in this way: He says he
was selected as umpire. Now, when he says that he was not an
employee, it is simply an explanation of how he acted there; that is,
what the facts are, and we can say whether he was an employee or
not if that becomes material.
Mr. Exriorr. That is the only service I ever rendered, and they
solicited that of me; I did not solicit that work from them.
The CuarrMan. I remember he stated that in another hearing.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; back in 1911.
Mr. McGuire. He did not state in the other hearing anything
about what I am now going to ask him. He stated something with
reference to the amount of money that he received.
The CHarRMAN. Yes; there was some talk about that, too.
Mr. McGuire. You appeared in a hearing before the Committee
on Ways and Means on the subject of the Alaska fur-seal fisheries,
did you not ?
Mr. Extrorr. When was that? What date?
Mr. McGuire. March 28, 1884.
Mr. Excurorr. Oh, Maj. McKinley, a member of the committee,
sent for me, and | went up.
Mr. McGurre. Well, you appeared ?
Mr. Exztiorr. Oh, yes; I was there.
Mr. McGutre. Who was the chairman of the committee ?
Mr. Exriorr. William R. Morrison. ‘The first thing he said to me
when I came in was, ‘‘ What are you lumbering in here for?’
Mr. McGuire. I find this question:
The CHarrman. Tell us what relation you bear to this matter.
Mr. Extrorr. Do you mean from the beginning?
The CHarRMAN. No; what relation you bear to it now.
Mr. Extiorr. As an expert; not as an attorney, but as one ready to go under oath
and testify.
Mr. Ex.iotrr. That is true; I remember that word ‘ expert.”
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 787
Mr. McGuire (reading):
The CuariRMAN. What brings you here?
Mr. Exziorr. I am here at the request of the Alaska Commercial Co.—
Mr. Eiiiotr Gnterposing). No; I deny that. I could not have
made that statement. _
Mr. McGuire (continuing) :
as an expert and not as an attorney.
Mr. Extiotr. I deny that; I never saw those “notes.’’ Those
have been padded and interpolated. I came there at the request of
Hon. William McKinley, Jr., who was a member of the committee,
and who sent a riding page down to me at the Smithsonian that
morning.
Mr. McGuire. Although this examination occurs just as I read
it in your testimony, you say It is not true?
Mr. Extiorr. Well, I never said that; I never saw those “‘notes’’;
that is not what I said.
Mr. McGuire. Then you deny this answer ?
Mr. Exxiotr. I deny that answer in that form; yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. “I am here at the request of the Alaska Commercial
Co. as an expert, and not as an attorney.”’ You deny making that
statement ?
Mr. Extiorr. “At the request of the Alaska Commercial Co,.’’—
yes; most emphatically I do. I remember clearly saying that I ap-
peared as ‘‘an expert and not as an attorney.”
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Hewitt was a member of the committee ?
Mr. Exxiorr. A. S. Hewitt, of New York; yes. I remember him
very well.
Mr. McGuire. In the course of the inquiry, as the record shows,
he asked this:
Are you in the employ of the company at present?
The Cuarrman. When was this?
Mr. McGurren. At the same time; the same date as before.
Mr. StepHens. What year?
Mr. Exxiorr. Right there——
The CHarrMAN (interposing). Let us get the date.
Mr. Exuiort. 1884; I think that is what he read.
Mr. McGuire. March 28, 1884?
Mr. Exirotr. Yes. Those are the ‘notes’ that Mr. Bowers
smuggied in, overnight, into the record of this committee and had
them printed without the knowledge of the chairman of this com-
mittee. That Bowers did so is in the “testimony,’’ on page 303,
hearing No. 7, August 5, 1911, and is admitted by him.
Mr. McGuire. On page 36
Mr. Evitiorr (interposing). They are the same ‘“‘notes’’ that
Mr. Bowers smuggled in overnight, and I declared that they were
padded and false on the same day he brought them up. (Hearing
No. 7, Aug..5, 1911, pp. 309, 310.)
The CuarrmMan. Where are these notes?
Mr. Exxiorr. I do not know; I never saw them.
The Cuarrman. Are they printed ?
Mr. McGuire. These are from the original record.
The Cuarrman. Do you have the original notes?
788 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGurirer. Yes; I have seen the original notes; they are a
part of the record. I will get the hearings of the committee, if
necessary. I am taking this right from the notes.
Mr. STEPHENS. Are they printed ?
Mr. Erztiort. I make the point that I never saw them, and there-
fore I
Mr. McGuire (interposing). You will have a chance to explain.
The CHairman. If you have the original notes I wish you would
produce them.
Mr. McGurre. I will try to get them; I think I can get them.
Mr. Exxiorr. Right there; if you have them, what then? I never
saw them; what do they signify ?
Mr. McGurre (reading):
Mr. Hewirr. Are you under salary of the company?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes.
Mr. Evxiotrr. That is another falsehood.
Mr. McGuire. Did you or did you not give that testimony ?
Mr. Exxuiort. I say no.
Mr. McGuire (reading):
Mr. Hersert. What service are you employed to render?
Do you remember that question ?
Mr. Exxiotrr. No; I do not quite remember it.
Mr. McGuire (reading):
Mr. Exuiorr. As counsel and adviser in the work on that island.
Mr. Exxiorr. I could not have used the word ‘‘counsel.”’ That is
absurd. I am not a lawyer, and never have pretended to be one.
Mr. McGuire. You did not do that?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I might have said “adviser.”
The CuarrmMan. Now, Mr. McGuire, I want to suggest that. it is
hardly fair to examine the witness without having the original notes.
That was nearly 30 years ago.
Mr. Evtriorr. Mr. Chairman, it has all been thrashed out here.
Mr. McGuire. I am vouching for these as correct, but if there is
ony question about them I will get the original notes and reexamine
im.
The CHarrMAN. The witness should at least have a chance to
refresh his recollection.
Mr. McGuire. I should be very glad
Mr. Eiirorr (interposing). I have never seen the ‘‘notes’’ he
quotes. How can I ‘‘refresh my recollection,” if I have never seen
the ‘‘notes’”’? How am I going to refresh my recollection, when I
never revised or saw the ‘‘notes”’ ?
The CoarrMan. Well, let us understand
Mr. Evuiorr (interposing). I do not want any ‘‘notes”’ brought
here that I have never seen, and have never revised as my ‘‘testi-
mony; that is what I am
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Well, you wait until we get throvgh.
Mr. Exxuiorr. Yes; but I want to understand
The CHArRMAN (interposing). I would like to look at those notes
if you have them; not that I question your right to quote extracts, but
it is a matter so long ago that I think we ought to have the original
notes.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 789
Mr. Extiorr. Does not that cover the right of a witness to correct
his ‘‘notes,”’ if he is to be brought in as a sworn witness ?
Mr. McGuire. At the request of the chatrman I will provide, if
possible, the original questions and answers as they were given before
the committee. However, I vouch for the accuracy of the copies
which I have, but will produce the originals, if I can.
The Cuarrmay. I will ask Mr. Elliott this: Do you mean to say
that these notes are printed in the other hearings ?
Mr. Extiorr. No; but a copy was, which Bowers brought in—
smuggled in—purporting to be the “notes” of my “testimony”’
given before that committee, which I had never seen before, until
he brought them in. (See pp. 139-142: Hearing No. 3, 1911.)
The CHarrMAN. That shows that the originals ought to be produced.
Mr. Extrorr. If they are produced what do they signify ?
The CHAIRMAN. One moment; you are not asking me any questions.
Mr. Extiorr. That is true, but I say that if they are produced here,
they have no value whatever.
Mr. SrePHEns. I reserve the right to strike from the record all of
this evidence if the original does not appear in the evidence, if there
be any objection.
The CHarrMan. It would not be germane unless the original is
oroduced.
Mr. McGurre. If the original can not be found and if the copy
which I haye can not be verified as being accurate and speaking the
truth, then I would not care to ask that it be placed in the record.
The CuartrMaANn. I think you are correct about that.
Mr. Extiorr. Right here, in my own testimony to this committee
I have changed the word “‘no”’ to “‘yes”’ three times; and ‘‘yes’”’ to
“no” twice. Mr. Clark has changed the word “no” to “yes”
twice in his testimony; why am I to be held down to a set of “‘notes”’
which I have never seen ?
The CuarrMANn. You are to understand that it is not a question of
how you shall be held down, but as to how the committee shall proceed.
Mr. Extiorr. The committee wants to distinctly understand that
I had never seen these “‘notes’”’ that were brought in here overnight,
and they are not my “‘notes,”’.and are padded and false as introduced
as my testimony by Mr. Bowers, June 28, 1911, in Hearing No. 3,
pages 139-142.
Mr. McGuire. How much did the company pay you?
Mr. Exxiotr. What company ?
Mr. McGuire. The North American Sealing Co.
Mr. Exriorr. The North American Sealing Co. ?
Mr. MoGuire. The Alaska Commercial Co. ?
Mr. Exvxiorr. I kept no books. J have stated it in my testimony
once, and I do not want to qualify it. It is stated in Hearing No. 4,
pages 205-207, July 11, 1911, and I will read that if you like.
Mr. McGuire. You need not mind.
Mr. Exxiorr. I have stated it there, and I still stand by it.
Mr. McGuire. IJ think you made some statement in regard to that ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, and that stands; I do not want to qualify it
or change it.
Mr. McGuire. On page 499, Fearing No. 10, you said that at one
time you received $5,000 from that company ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes.
790 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. McGuire. Then at ancther time $1,000 from the company ?
Mr. Exziort. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Then at another time $1,000 and perhaps more ?
Mr. Eriiotr. Yes; I think more. I have no books; I have not
kept them. After the settlement of the Otis dispute, I think they gave
me more; [ think it went up above that.
~Mr. McGuire. That is at least $7,000 that you received from the
Alaska Commercial Co. ?
Mr. Extiotr. Oh, yes; it might have been $100,000, but what is
the difference? The principle is the same.
Mr. McGuire. I was just asking you the question. Now, were you
in favor of re-leasing the islands in 1909 ?
Mr. Exxviotr. 1899 you mean.
Mr. McGutre. In 1909 J asked you?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, no.
Mr. McGuire. Why were you not?
Mr. Exxriorr. Because I learned in 1890, that it could not be done
properly; that the lease had got to be canceled; I knew that then in
detail, and it is the base of my recommendation to that end in my
report of November 17, 1890. I said distinctly
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Were youin favor of re-leasing them in
1899 ?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes; I did not know then what changes had been
made in the status since 1874. I did not then have any idea about
the difficulties which the palagic sealing had brought about. I did
not understand the changed order of affairs, as I had not been on the
islands for nearly 20 years. Then, when I went up in 1890, I saw
at a glance that here was a question of alien private interests in the
water, and our own lessees, or their private interests, on the islands;
that the alien private interests would never yield as long as our private
interests were in the business. That is the reason I made that
recommendation.
Mr. MoGurre. In 1889 when you
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). 1888, think it was. Ido not remember
making any expression in 1889. I think it was in 1888 when I was
asked by Chairman Dunn to come up and testify before the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. I went up from the Smithsonian
at his request, and he asked me to give him a story of the seal life on
the islands. He was interested in the biological end of it, and he had
read my works. In the course of that statement, he asked me that
question, and I said, ‘“‘ yes”; I then thought it was all right. I did not
know that anything was wrong at that time; had no conception of
the change wrought in the premises by the issue of pelagic sealing,
which was not in sight even during my studies of 1872-1874.
Mr. McGurre. Now, Mr. Elliott, unless the other members of the
committee want those extended explanations, I would suggest that
you just explain far enough to protect your testimony all the way
through.
Mr. Exxrorr. All right.
Mr. McGurre. Without quite so much detail.
Mr. Exrtiotr. I wanted to make that clear; I wanted you to
understand it.
Mr. McGuire. You did make a recommendation in 1888 or 1889
for the re-leasing of the islands ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 791
Mr. Exxtrorr. | made no recommendation.
Mr. McGutre. You were in favor of it?
Mr. Exxiotr. I saw no objection to it. J had no interest in it;
no interest any more than you had. I was, however, deeply inter-
ested in the biology of the seals, and my whole testimony, if I re-
member, related chiefly to the seals.
Mr. McGuire. That was when the Alaska Commercial Co. had
the islands ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Oh, yes; they had the lease of the islands all right.
Mr. McGurre. In 1888 and 1889?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes. .
Mr. McGurre. That was the company that gave you the money ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir. It would have been just the same, if they
had not.
Mr. McGuire. You had no objection to the re-leasing ?
Mr. Exxiotr. At that time, no.
Mr. McGutre. Do you say to this committee that you did not
make any recommendation in your testimony or evidence that they
should be re-leased ?
Mr. Exriotr. No; I did not. I never had any thought of such a
thing; it did not come up.
Mr. McGuire. Did you object at any time to the Government
taking over the islands ?
Mr. Exxtiotr. Yes. At the very beginning I did. According to
my first idea in 1872-1874, I thought it would be a bad idea for the
Government to manage the business, and so thought up to 1890 and
till I saw the changed order of affairs due to pelagic sealing in that
year for the first time.
Mr. McGuire. When was that ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. That was before I knew much about it; that was in
1872 and 1874. Here it is in my report of 1874. That was before I
had experience. Everything looked lovely in 1874, and so when I
made my report of 1874 I considered that the settlement of the
question as to whether the Government should take control of the
islands or should be leased to a private corporation was best settled
by having a private corporation take charge of it. I went into an -
extended analysis of that reason. But after going up there 16 years
later I saw that that thing would not work any longer.
Mr. McGuire. You never at any time, Mr. Elliott, made a state-
ment to a committee in which you objected to the Government taking
over the islands and in which you stated, in substance, that it would
be disastrous ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, no. I can not think of my making that state-
ment before a committee. I may have repeated some of this before
-a committee; that is, from my report of 1874. It is possible I did
read extracts. from my report of 1874; but in 1890 I revised that
opinion and acknowledged my mistake, since pelagic sealing had
reversed the whole ground of my opinion in 1874 to 1888.
Mr. McGuire. Did you appear before the Committee on Mer-
chant Marine and Fisheries on June 8, 1888 ¢
Mr. Exxtiotr. Yes; that is the one J am talking about.
Mr. McGurre. Well, that is what I am asking you.
792 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuarrMan. It has been such a long time since that time that
I think it is only fair to the witness to direct his attention to the
particular thing you want to bring out.
Mr. McGuire. That is the way I am proceeding. I will ask him
if he stated so and so.
Mr. Exxiorr. It was all set forth to that committee from my
report of 1874; but when I went up in 1890 the whole thing had
changed. Matters were such with the alien private interests, and
our own private interests, that 1t was impossible to get them into
any agreement.
Mr. McGurre. I will ask you whether you made this statement
to that committee:
As a direct governmental control any man running it for the Government would
be at the very outset charged with making corrupt combinations, and the scandal and
noise would be so great that no reputable man would cr could long hold the office.
Tf he did he would be so charged as to be a candidate for the penitentiary before the
end of six months, even if he were innocent as a white-winged angel.
Did you say that or that in substance ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; I also said that in 1874. I read that from this
report, which I revised in 1890, with a better knowledge and under-
standing of the changed conditions wrought by pelagic sealing since
1880.
Mr. McGuire. You say you said that in 1874?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; it is in this report, the same language.
Mr. SrepuHeEns. Is that the report you made in 1874 ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes. (Condition of Affairs in Alaska: Rept. Nov.
16, 1874: Treasury Department, see pp. 94, 96, 97: Printed by Sec-
retary Treasury: June, 1875: 8°, 277 pp.)
Mr. McGuire. You did not make that statement on June 8, 1888 ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, I did. I made it in my sworn report of 1874,
and repeated it June 8, 1888, to that committee. I had no better
knowledge, or better hight, until 1890.
Mr. McGuire. When you say you changed your mind ?
Mr. Exxrorr. I changed my mind in 1890 as soon as I saw the
effect of the killing by private interests in the water, and the effect of
killing by private interests on the land, and the impossibility of get-
ting any agreement between them. Therefore they both had to be
eliminated.
Mr. McGuire. Then was this question asked ?
You do not think it would be practicable for the Government to undertake the
business?
Mr. Exxriotr. At that time.
Mr. McGurre (reading):
Mr. Exurorr. No, sir; I do not think it would. It would not result in as clear a
record and as handsome a return as it does now. It would harass the Secretary of the
Treasury and render the life of the Treasury agents a burden to themselves and their
friends.
Did you make that reply to a question on June 8, 1888, before
the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries—House report
3883, Fiftieth Congress, second session, page 146?
Mr. Ex.xtiorr. Do you want me to answer that?
The CuarrMAN. Well, did you or did you not?
Mr. Extxiorr. Yes; I answered it.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 793
The CHarrMaANn. And have it in your report ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes. The pelagic sealers changed in 1886-1890 the
whole thought I had before in 1872-1874. I will say right now that
had we had no trouble in the water and on the high seas [ would have
continued the relation of leasing, but by having better regulations,
which would be enforced, and the law obeyed. I say that frankly.
But, with pelagic sealers, it was impossible to have a lease.
The CHarRMAN. You mean if pelagic sealers happened to control
the sea as well as the islands ?
Mr. Exvxiotr. Yes; that is exactly what it was; and that ended
any idea of alease. That dawned on me quickly in 1890.
Mr. McGutre. Was it ever the practice to kill pups—that is, to
loll pups from 4 to 6 months old? Was that the practice when you
were on the islands in 1872 and 1874?
Mr. Exvxiotr. They killed male pups for food in November, 4,000
or 5,000 of them. They had been doing that from away back—since
1804, annually. They separated them, male from female. That had
been the regular practice.
Mr. McGuire. Was that when you were in charge ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Why, certainly; but I was not ‘‘in charge.”’ I was
only an assistant. Nobody objected to it, however.
Mr. McGurre. Then it is a fact that 1872 and 1874——_
Mr. Exxuiotr (interposing). Yes.
Mr. McGuire (continuing). They killed more than 5,000 pups from
4 to 6 months old, before they left the islands.
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir. That is all officially reported. They killed
them for food for the natives. They never killed any female pups.
They separated them.
Mr. McGuire. Do they do that now?
Mr. Exxuiorr. No. I urged in my monograph of 1884 that it be
discontinued as a waste.
Mr. McGuire. And when you were there as the representative of
the Government, in 1872 and 1874, you did not speak of it ?
Mr. Exxiiorr. No; because it did not seem to have any significance.
There were about a million and a quarter of pups on the islands then.
Mr. McGuire. Since that time you objected very vigorously to the
killing of yearlings ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Well, I objected at that time, but this idea of killing
five or six thousand male four-months-old small pups was like a drop
in the bucket, or a grain of sand on the seashore. Nobody paid any
attention to it.
Mr. McGuire. That was done under your direction ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No, sir; it was not done under my direction. Iwas
not in control there. I was not the agent in charge.
Mr. McGuire. Then I misunderstood you. I understood you
were a representative of the Government.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, sir; but I was a subordinate agent, an ‘‘assist-
ant agent,” and really, I paid very little attention to those small
official matters which the chief special agent was charged with.
Mr. McGuire. You made no objection at that time ?
Mr. Exxziorr. No, sir; there was no reason for it. It did not
amount to a row of pins.
Mr. StepHens. Was there any rule or regulation prohibiting it ?
‘
794 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exuiorr. No,sir. Not until the promulgation of the Carlisle
rules in 1896, was any regulation ever made which prohibited the
killing of yearlings, even.
Mr. SterHEeNS. When were they promulgated ?
Mr. Exxiiotr. May 14, 1896.
Mr. SrerHens. Have they been in force ever since ?
Mr. Exxiorr. They have been in force ever since. They have
never been amended. But this killing of 5,000 small four and five
months old male pups, when there were more than 1,000,000 pups on
the islands, was perfectly innocuous.
Mr. McGuire. How about the yearlings at that time ?
Mr. Exxtrorr. Nobody cared anything about them. They killed
annually a few hundred of them for pup blankets. There was no regu-
lation prohibiting it.
Mr. McGuire. In your monograph at page 69 you say that 5,743
pups under 6 months old and an unstated number of yearlings
Mr. Exxriorr (interposing). Yes; nobody kept track of them.
Mr. McGuire (continuing). Of which 5,806 were rejected by the
company, were killed in 1880.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I did not say any yearlings were killed by the
Government or the lessees. That is a statement by Gen. Otis. That
must have been a footnote to his report, which I have got in my
monograph. ;
Mr. McGurire._ Yes.
Mr. Exxiorr. But nobody wanted in 1872—1874—1884 any year-
lings. They were of no value. Therefore no regulation appeared
because no yearlings were taken by the lessees until Secretary Car-
lisle learned in May, 1896, that the lessees were going to take year-
lings; then he put out these regulations forbidding that killing,
May 14, 1896. }
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Elliott, there was some contention yes-
terday as to your attitude and the attitude of the representatives
from the department with respect to whether a sealskin is lighter
when it is first taken from the seal or whether itis lighter after it
has been salted for shipment to the place of final disposition or sale.
I ask you whether at a former hearing you did not state that the
skins were heavier after they were salted than when they were taken
from the seal ?
Mr. Exxiorr. | have always stated that, and I do now.
Mr. McGurre. Then your position is that when a skin is taken from
the seal with a reasonable amount of blubber and weighed and salted,
as they salt them for shipment, after it has laid in the salt for some
time, for some weeks, and whatever juices are extracted by the dis-
solution of the salt are separated from the skins, that the skins will be
heavier; is that right ?
Mr. Exiiorr. You are putting words in my mouth which I did not
say.
Mr. McGurre. I am asking you a question.
Mr. Extrorr. Why, you are assuming that I took that ground.
Mr. McGurre. I am asking you what ground you took?
Mr. Extrorr. T took the ground that the skin is increased in weight
by the salt that is put on it when it is packed as cured and leaves the
islands; my additional experience with 400 skins last summer has
again proved it. Every one of them was increased in weight.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 795
The CHarrMan. Without intending to interrupt In any way what-
ever, is it not a fact that if you throw handfuls of salt on a skin it will
get heavier but it may dry later? In other words, it depends on the
length of time, whether the salt is applied —if there were a skin here
now, and if we threw 2 pounds of salt on it, would it weigh less after
the 2 pounds of salt were put on it?
Mr. Exxiott. Certainly not.
The CHarrMan. It seems to me—and I may have a wrong impres-
sion—that the theory is that if a skin has been in the salt for four
months it may make a difference in the weight. Is that your con-
tention, Mr. McGuire? |
Mr. McGuire. The contention, Mr. Chairman, is this: In the
former testimony before the committee, I at least received the im-
pression that Mr. Elhott took the position that after a skin was
salted, immediately before shipment to be sent to market, after the
fragments and juices extracted by the salt were off of the skin, that
the skin would still be heavier because it was wet. Now, I am not
certain that I understood him correctly.
Mr. Exxiott. You did not.
Mr. McGuire. I also understood the department. officials to say
that after experimentation the skins were lighter. It arose over the
question of the salting of these 400 skins. There was a contention
yesterday as to whether I had understood Mr Elliott’s position cor-
rectly. Of course, the heft or lightness of the skin depends upon the
amount of salt at the time, if you are going to weigh them at the
time, but after four or stx months
The CHAIRMAN (interposing). But I say that the course of time
must necessarily
Mr. Exrxiorr (interposing). The length of time does not have any-
thing to do with it; i. e., with my position in the case.
Mr. StePHENS. In my country the climate has something to do
withit. It will necessarily dry, but in Alaska the climate is different.
Mr. McGuire. The skins are packed by twos and heretofore they
have been sent to the London markets. Now, when they take them
there and shake them out, allowing a reasonable time for transporta-
tion, say two months, the contention of the department is that they
would be lighter. I understand Mr. Elhott’s contention is that they
would be heavier. That is what I am inquiring about.
Mr. Exxiorr. Now, let me show you where Mr. McGuire has not
correctly understood me.
Mr. McGuire. [ am asking you.
Mr. Exxiorr. You are laboring under a misapprehension.
Mr. McGuire. Wait until I ask you a question.
‘The CHarrMAN. For the benefit of the committee, let us see what is
correct.
Mr. McGuire. But he could answer my question and then make
any explanation he wants to. Jam interrogating him.
Mr. Exiiotr. And I answer you that you are mistaken.
Mr. McGurre. All right.
Mr. Exxiotr. Now, | will prove it.
Mr. McGurre. But wait until L get through with this page. I
have here hearing No. 1, May 31 and June 2, 1911, page 13. Mr.
Townsend is interrogating Mr. Elhott. It is the last paragraph at
796 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
the bottom of the page. Mr. Townsend is speaking of the length of
50 skins (reading):
Mr. TownsEND. That was the average of 50?
Mr. Exutorr. Yes, sir; yearling skins. And we killed them that day because there
was a demand made for some “‘blanket” skins. (In those days there was no such
close restriction on killing seals as now. They were not enforced. There were so
many of them that the matter of killing 50 yearling skins just for the sake of getting
the measurements, and that sort of thing, was nothing. Nobody cared anything
about it. Some one wanted the ‘‘backs” of them to sew up into blankets, and so
it was done cheerfully for that purpose. I remember it distinctly.) Then, that
yearling skin was taken into the salt house and from half a pound to a pound of coarse
rock salt, according to the care or carelessness of the native, was thrown upon the
fleshy side. That salt is slowly dissolved in 7 days or 10 days, or 2 weeks, as the
case may be. It does not run off. It ‘‘strikes in” and goes into the hide and cures
it and stiffens it and makes a kind of crust, which adds all the way from half a pound
in such a small skin to a pound in a larger skin, or a pound and a half, of increased
weight when it goes over to London from its ‘‘green’’ condition.
Now, that is your position now, is it ?
Mr. Exxiiorr. Yes; that is my position.
Mr. McGuire. And the salted skins there in Alaska will weigh
more in London after they have been salted a sufficient length of
time—a reasonable time for transportation—than they weighed
when they were taken from the seals ?
Mr. Exviorr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Now, you may make your explanation or whatever
you have to say.
Mr. Exriorr. On page 134, hearing No. 1, of this session—your
name appears in there, Mr. McGuire, and I want to show you that
you are mistaken—there occurred this extract from hearing No. 9,
pages 444, 445, and 446.
Mr. Lempxey. No, sir. I speak of the weights on the islands, and have brought in
the London weights to show there is not really very much variation.
Mr. McGuire. That is what I am speaking about. The weights you speak about
after salting are the London weights?
Mr. Lempxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. That is what I was trying to get at. Now, then, Mr. Elliott, what
weights do you speak about?
Mr. Evuiorr. I speak of the London “‘salt weights” increasing the “‘green weights”
on the islands one-half pound and more, as the skins vary in size.
Mr. McGurre. You speak of the green weights in London after they have been
salted?
Mr. Exiorr. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. And Mr. Lembkey spoke of the weights in London after they have
been salted.
Mr. Exuiorr. We are both speaking of the same thing.
Mr. McGuire. You say there is a slight decrease—no—you say, Mr. Elliott, there
is an increase from a fraction of a pound to a pound, even in London?
Mr. Evuiorr. Even in London. I wish to quote as my authority the man who
does the classifications in London, Sir George Baden-Powell, and Dr. George M.
Dawson, the British commissioner, addressed a letter to Sir Curtis Lampson.
The CHarRMAN. What do they say?
Mr. Exrrorr. They say:
‘‘We are unable to answer your inquiry as to what class the sales catalogue would
place a skin classified on the island as, say, a 7-pound skin, as we do not know whether
the classification you mention with reference to the skins is taken after or after
they have been cured and salted ready for shipping. The process of curing and
salting must of necessity add to the weight.
Mr. LemBxey. ‘‘Must of necessity.’’ I submit that was merely his inference that
they must of necessity be increased in weight.
The CHatrMAN. Is that not true?
Mr. Lempxey. No; I stated it was not.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 797
The CHarRMAN. You differ on that?
Mr. Lempxey. All our experiments show that the salting of skins slightly decrease
the weight. Those gentlemen’s inference—and I think the inference of a great many
people who have never made an experiment on that point—would be that the salt
does increase it.
Now, opposing that is Mr. Lembkey’s own official entry in his jour-
nal, Saturday, July 23, 1904. He says:
On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi were weighed and salted. To-day they were
hauled out of the kench and reweighed. At the time of killing they weighed 705
pounds, and on being taken out they weighed 7593 pounds, a gain in salting of 543
pounds, or one-half pound per skin.
Mr. StepHENS. Where do you find that?
Mr. Exxiotr. It is right here in this deadly parallel, on page 134,
hearing No. 1, January 17, 1914. Lembkey affirms Sir Curtis Lamp-
son, the English authority. They agree there exactly. Now, why
do I want to discredit them? Mr. Lembkey is the authority on the
islands, and Mr. Lampson is the English authority. Why should
there be any dispute about that?
The CuarRMAN. Your position is that his statement confirms yours ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; and it confirms the English authority.
Mr. Parton. The English authority does not say that they have
made the test.
Mr. Exvziotr. They do not say that he had not.
Mr. McGuire. You are assuming that he has.
Mr. Exziorr. No; you are assuming that he hasnot. If Lembkey
is right, he has made the experiment; and if Lembkey is wrong, then
he is wrong.
Mr. Patron. If I remember correctly, we weighed some skins.
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes.
Mr. Patron. And they did not show any gain?
Mr. Exxiotr. That is because all the salt and some “welts” of
blubber were shaken off of them—-was ‘‘shaken, swept, and brushed”’
vigorously and thoroughly off.
Mr. McGuire. Then you are taking the position that the salt is
packed on the skins so that it can not be gotten off, and it will increase
the weight of the skins. Anybody can tell you that you can add
weight by putting something on things. But you believe that after
giving it a fair test the skin will lose in salting. ©
Mr. Exptiorr. I have not made that statement. I have not said
that the skins will not lose if all the salt is shaken off and they are
dried. Of course, if you take all the salt off and dry them they will
be lighter.
Mr. Patron. Then the skins are lighter after salting ?
Mr. Exziorr. Well, I am not talking about dried skins, I am
talking about green skins.
Mr. Parton. But you said they were lighter.
Mr. Extiorr. I said as dried skins they can be lighter.
Mr. Patron. Mr. Lembkey says that they are lighter after salting.
You now say that you agree with him that if you take all the salt
off the skins will lose.
Mr. Exiiorr. Of course; if you take all the salt out of the skins
they are bound to lose. He did not do that on the islands, and no
one ever has done such a thing when the skins were cured and
shipped. It would ruin them.
798 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Parron. Then the difference in weight is in the amount of salt
when they are weighed over there ?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes.
Mr. Patron. And if the salt drops off they lose, and if the salt
stays
Mr. HLiiorr (interposing). Well, but they do not ‘drop it off.”
They keep it on, substantially all of it, until it goes to the dresser.
They pile the skins up there, and nearly all of this salt used in curing
of shipment is left on them until the buyer sends them to the dresser.
Mr. McGuire. How do you get that information ?
Mr. Exxuiorr. Oh, I heard these men talking about it.
Mr. McGuire. Who did you hear?
Mr. Exxiorr. The lessees’ ren on the islands, who were at the Lon-
don sales, with the buyers and the furriers there.
Mr. McGuire. Who did you talk with on the islands ?
Mr. Exztiotrr. Dr. McIntyre, Thomas Morgan, Daniel Webster, and
Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. Parron. Where are they now ?
Mr. Exzriorr. Ch, my Godfrey; they are dead. That was a long
time ago—it was in 1873-74 J] am a pretty old man, Mr. McGuire;
nearly old enough to be your father.
Mr. Patron. You do not look it.
Mr. Exxriorr. When you ask me to go into the past, and bring these
men back to life, and bring them before the committee, you ask an
impossibility, and it is not fair to me.
Mr. McGuire. When you quoted Mr. Lembkey as saying that he
had had experience with a number of seals -
Mr. Exxrrorr (interposing). Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And they were heavier after they were salted——
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You did not quote him in full.
Mr. Extiorr. Just exactly everything that he put into the journal.
He is quoted exactly and ‘‘in full,” as he records it, in his official
record.
Mr. McGuire. Now, as a matter of fact, you remember his testi-
mony
Mr. Exxiorr (interposing). Oh, I remember his testimony, all
right.
‘Mr. McGurre. You remember having read that testimony ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Oh, yes; I heard and then read his testimony.
Mr. McGuire. That they threw those skins into a pond ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, yes; but that is not in his official journal.
Mr. McGuire. Is not that in Mr. Lembkey’s testimony ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; but it is not in his official journal. It was an
afterthought. A good many afterthoughts came into his testi-
mony later.
Mr. McGurre. Well, let it be an afterthought.
Mr. Extiorr. I am going to bring in some more, after awhile.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Lembkey stated they put those skins in water
and that they laid in water for the purpose of protecting them and
preventing their exposure until they took them into the salt house,
and in this soaked and watered condition they salted them ?
Mr. Exxrorr. Yes.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 799
Mr. McGurre. That was the batch of skins that you just now
spoke about ? Paris ;
Mr. Exriotr. No, sir; different batch and different day. There
is no record of it in his official journal—not a word.
Mr. McGuire. Now, I will ask you whether you heard the testi-
mony of the witnesses from the department, including the testimony
of Dr. Evermann ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I heard that all.
Mr. McGuire. In which they told of their experiments and said
that the skins were lighter after salting ? 5
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes, sir; they ought to be lighter if they are dried
and swept; they dried them and swept all the salt off of them, and
all of the blubber “welts,” too. _
Mr. McGuire. You know that is not his testimony. That is not
the testimony of the witnesses from the department.
Mr. Extiorr. Well, they took the sait off.
Mr. McGuire. You said they dried them.
Mr. Exriorr. Oh, that is what it means. Let us get the exact
testimony, and we will get it right.
Mr. McGurre. But you said ‘If they were dried.”’
Mr. Exxiorr. They must have dried them, to get them in that
shape.
Mr. McGuire. Then, in your judgment, they dried them ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Ch, they were dried in the manipulation.
Mr. McGutre. Is that the batch of skins that you had up there?
Mr. Exuiotr. No, sir. I will show you. Let me show you what
they did. No wonder they were lighter. In Hearing No. 14, pages
974 and 975, July 29, 1912, also appearing on page 135 of Hearing
No. 1 of this session, Dr. Evermann says:
Dr. EvermMANN. Last year, when Mr. M. C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service, went
to the Pribilof Islands he was instructed to make certain investigations, one of which
was to determine by actual experiment the effect that salting has upon the weight
of fur-seal skins. He made a very careful investigation of the matter, and his report
has just been received. It is so interesting and valuable that I wish to put it in the
record. His investigation settles the question conclusively and for all time. It
shows that salting causes fur-seal skins to lose weight. The report is as follows:
“The average loss of weight for the whole 60 skins is 0.63 pound, or 10 ounces.
This is an understatement of the average loss of weight, which, I believe, is at least
an ounce greater. The reason is that it is practically impossible to mechanically
remove all the salt from the skins before reweighing. They were shaken, swept,
and brushed, but a few grains and crystals of salt were always left adhering to each
side of the skin. Obviously, it would not do to wash them off. By more carefully
cleaning a few of the reweighed skins and then again weighing them, I estimate this
residual salt to average an ounce or something more.”’
Mr. McGuire. That is Dr. Evermann’s testimony ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That is Dr. Evermann’s testimony coving the experi-
ments made by Mr. Marsh “last year,’’ meaning 1911.
Mr. McGuire. They swept and brushed them ?
Mr. Ex.iott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGuire. And could not get the salt off?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; they could not get “every grain’ they say.
Now, in doing that, they certainly “dried”’ them in the very act of
hard sweeping and stiff brushing them.
Mr. McGuire. That is your judgment.
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, that would necessarily dry them.
800: INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Patron. Were those skins dry that were here ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Oh, do not ask me about them. I will let the testi-
mony stand as to that. We went over all that, April 24, 1912, see
pages 545-557, hearing No. 10, et seq.
og Patron. Well, that is not an answer to my question. Were
they dry ?
Mr. Pe Oe Oh, no. They were moist with more or less salt
adherent. But if I had taken those skins—I will show you right
here now
Mr. Patron (interposing). I am asking you.
Mr. Exxiorr. All right; those skins were moist with more or less salt
adherent.
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Elliott, you spoke of takmg 400 skins:
while you were there on the islands last summer.
Mr. Exxtiotr. They were “taken” by Mr. Lembkey, July 7, 1913,
and I handled them, July 29, 1913. I did not see him kill the seals;
but the official record of that work fixes the date. I did not land on
St. Paul until 8.40 a. m., July 9, 1913.
Mr. McGuire. Did you examine those skins ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; every one. I looked at every one very closely.
Mr. McGutre. What about the blubber on those skins? Was
there more or less than there ought to be?
Mr. Exxiorr. I have described it in detail—see pages 122-135,
hearing No. 1, 1914. Briefly, I will tell you that every little skin, with
the exception of 18, carried an excessive thickness of blubber, varying
in thickness from—well, the thickness of the blubber varied from
half an inch to one-sixteenth of aninch. The lightest of the small
skins weighed 44 or 44 pounds. Some of them were “loaded” or
blubbered up to 54, to 64, and 7, and 74 to 8} pounds. There were
only 18 of those small 34-inch skins that were properly skinned and
not unduly “blubbered”’ out of a total of 134 such.
Mr. McGurre. What do you mean by properly blubbered ?
Mr. Extiorr. Not “properly blubbered.”
Mr. McGurre. You mean those that had too much blubber?
Mr. Exxiorr. They had ‘‘blubbered”’ them from 44 pounds up to
6,7, and 8 pounds. They are all identified and ready for use.
Mr. McGuire. You took that number of skins from the salt house
where all skins had been salted ?
Mr. Extiorr. No; I did not take them, Mr. McGuire. They were
taken by Mr. Lembkey on July 7, the day before we landed. It was
a typical day’s work. I gave notice to Mr. Chamberlin July 14, 1913,
that I did not want them disturbed for bundling until I measured
them and examined them.
Mr. McGuire. And that is the batch of 400 skins?
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGutre. They were killed in the usual way ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGutre. Skinned and cared for as all the rest of them were
skinned and cared for?
Mr. Exxrorr. Yes, sir. That was a complete, typical day’s work,
as had been done every season for 16 years back.
Mr. McGuire. And they had the proper and usual amount of
blubber ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 801
Mr. McGurre. And the skins that did not have enough blubber——
Mr. Exvxiotrr (interposing). Oh, no skin failed to have enough.
Most of them had too much.
Mr. McGuire. Well, I meant they had too much.
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir; the little skins had too much.
Mr. McGurre. Do you know how the Government came to sell
those skins ¢
Mr. Ex.iotr. Oh, yes. They were selling them by the agency of
reputable people, in London first and St. Louis last, in so far as I
know, up to this hour.
Mr. McGurre. Yesterday I sent a telegram to Funsten Bros. & Co.,
St. Louis, making inquiry as to whether the skins which were taken
from the Pribilof Islands by the agents of the Government of the
United States in 1913 and sold in St. Louis were properly skinned and
properly treated, this being the firm that handled the skins for the
Government and sold them for the Government. I received this reply
on my desk this morning:
Sr. Louris, Mo., March 13.
Hon. Brrp McGuire,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
Telegram received. Alaska sealskins handled by us for United States Government
last December did not have enough blubber left on the skins. This was the only
criticism made by the buyers in connection with the shipment and sale. They were
otherwise properly skinned, properly salted, and bundled for shipment.
FunNstTEN Bros. & Co.
The CuarrMan. Does that refer to the 400 or the other skins?
Mr. McGurre. It refers to all the skins.
The CuarrMan. The reason I am asking that question is this: I
have asked them to let those 400 skins remain intact.
Mr. Patron. I understand that Mr. Eliott makes the claim that
all skins that were taken up there were too heavily blubbered.
Mr. Exriotr. Oh, no; most all of the little skins.
Mr. McGurre. But here is the point: Mr. Elhott has just now stated
in his testimony that those 400 skins represented the killing of, the
day before he reached the islands, and that they were killed and
skinned in the usual way.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. With the usual amount of blubber ?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
The CHarrmMan. These 400?
Mr. McGurre. And those 400 represented one day’s kill?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGutrre. Now, then, if all the other skins were like these
Aan then all the others were like those handled by Funston Bros.
0.4
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; that is a fair presumption.
The CHatrman. No, but the thing I want to know is whether
they themselves opened those skins ¢
Mr. Exxtiorr. No; they have not.
The CuatrmMan. Whether they have opened those cask skins or
whatever you call them, and examined these 400 skins?
Mr. Extiotr. I want to answer him right there, because I can
clear this up in a minute.
The CHarrmMAn. One moment.
58490—14—_51
802 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Patton. The contention of Mr. Elliott has been all along that
all the skins have blubbered too heavily.
Mr. Exxriotr. No; I have not said that. I said “only the little
skins,” or the ‘small pups.” :
Mr. STEPHENS. Well, the notes will show.
-Mr. Exxtiotr. I want to answer that question.
The CHarrMAN. One moment, Mr. Elhott; will you wait until he
gets through.
Mr. Exuiotr. Well, I will wait. ea
The CHatrMan. The reason I speak about that is this: I have sent
word to and conferred with the Secretary of Commerce and I have
been assured that those 400 skins will not be touched or opened by
anybody until the committee gets through, except by Government
officials, and I want to know if Funsten Bros. & Co. have done that.
Do you know that they did anything with those 400 skins ?
Mr. SrerHens. I would suggest that the chairman send a telegram.
Mr. McGuire. In reply to the statement of the chair I will say
that personally I know absolutely nothing about the 400 skins in
question. All I know is what I have learned here in the course of the
testimony of Mr. Elliott and perhaps other witnesses. I have ascer-
tained that Funsten Bros. & Co. had been secured by the Department.
of Commerce to sell for the Government the skins taken on the
Pribilof Islands in 1913, and as a result of that information, yesterday,
March 13, I sent a telegram making inquiry and received in reply the
telegram which I have just read.
Mr. STEPHENS. Can you give us the language of the telegram you
sent them ?
Mr. McGuire. No; not right now; but if you desire I can put it in
the record later, for the reason that I dictated it to my stenographer
and he has it in his shorthand, I think, and I will get it.
The CuarrmMan. Now, I think you should ask them whether they
examined those 400 skins. That is what I would like to know,
because I know that they have positive instructions that nobody
should touch them except our own officials, and unless we ascertain
that fact we ought not to get those skins mixed up with the other
skins.
Mr. McGurre. Well, I secured in this telegram such information
as I called for without any reference to the 400 skins. If any person
wants further information with respect to the 400 skins for the benefit
of the committee I should think that 1t would be well for him to
make inquiry or to let the committee take such formal action as it
deems proper. I sent for this information for the reason that it had
been stated by Mr. Elhott that all skins on the islands taken for a
number of years, that is, the smaller skins
Mr. Exiiotr (interposing). That is right—the ‘small skins.”
Mr. McGurreE (continuing). Carried too much blubber.
Mr. Exziotr. That is right.
Mr. McGuire. And I wanted to ascertain what information the
company has in respect of that matter, and I have given it to the
committee for the benefit of the committee.
Mr. Extuiotr. Now, might I answer that statement ?
The CuarrMAN. The reason J ask is this: I want to know and will
know whether they have disobeyed the instructions from the depart-
ment or from the committee.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA 803
Mr. McGuire. That is purely a matter for the department and
not for me. If the department has secured incompetent officials
to look out for its business, that 1s not my fault.
The CHarrMan. I do not mean it as a reflection on you.
Mr. Extiotr. Now, I will throw some light on that.
Mr. McGurre. I am not asking you for information.
The CHarrRMAN. You may explain about that telegram.
Mr. Exiiorr. He complains, in truth, there that the skins are
too closely skinned; that they have not got a sufficient amount of
blubber on them; but he does not tell the committee that only the
large skins are so clean skinned; but that has been the rule right along,
to skin the big skins down fine and ‘‘clean,”’ and “load up”’ the little
skins with blubber so that they will weigh the same.
Mr. Parron. That is your supposition.
Mr. Exiiorr. I have the example of the 400 skins to govern my
supposition. These 400 skins will support my statement; I know
the skins will speak for themselves: We might as well pass on from
that point. The skins will speak for themselves, and that is an end
of it. I have identified them, and the identification is complete.
It is certified to by the Department of Commerce and by this com-
mittee.
Mr. McGuire. You say that Funsten Bros. & Co., who sent me
that telegram, mean that the large skins
Mr. Exxiott (interposing). Yes.
Mr. McGuire (continuing). Did not have enough blubber ?
Mr. Exuiort. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. You believe that?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes, sir; that is what they meant.
Mr. McGutre. In the rest of the telegram they state the other
skins have just enough blubber. You believe that also, do you not?
Mr. Extiorr. I do not know anything about the rest of the tele-
gram. I am only speaking about the large skins, and that is their
complaint, and I say that is right.
Mr. McGuire. They state that there is not enough blubber on any
of them.
Mr. Exxiorr. I do not believe that.
Mr. McGuire. But you do believe that the large skins did not
have enough ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I believe they had enough; I will say that.
Mr. McGuire. You believe in one instance one way and in another
instance another way ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I have given you my opinion. You have their
opinion. This dealer-has the right to his opinion as much as I have.
I have, however, abundant reasons for believing as I do, and abun-
dant proof of my statement.
Mr. Stepruens. I think I should call the attention of the committee
to the fact that the telegram speaks of the December shipment and no
other shipment.
Mr. Patton. That is right.
Mr. StepHens. As I understand it, all this controversy was last
summer 4
Mr. Exxiorr. We have those skins all right; they have not been
disposed of.
Mr. Parton. That is the first sale they had in the United States.
804 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiotr. Then there is another thing about that Funsten sale.
There is no classification of them. f
Mr. SrepHEens. Another question would be whether they were
skinned under the same circumstances and by the same men ?
Kr. Exrrotr. Oh, yes; the same natives.
Mr. Parron. Well, these were brought in and sold in December ?
Mr. SrepHEens. The same skins ?
Mr. Patton. Yes.
Mr. Exxiotr. No; not these 400 skins.
Mr. Parron. I am not saying anything about the 400 skins. J am
talking about the balance of the skins. If the department has said
that the 400 skins should not be touched, I do not suppose they have
been ?
Mr. Extiotr. There were no skins taken in 1913 up to July 29,
except these 400 that I know of.
Mr. Parron. That is all that were taken for food and anything else ?
Mr. Exriorr. Yes; as far as | knew up to my departure from
St. Paul July 29, last.
Mr. Parron. And then these other skins were taken for food. That
is the only sale we have had.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes.
Mr. Parron. I do not suppose they touched the 400?
Mr. Exxiotr. No; they have not.
The CuarrmMan. I have their assurance that they would not touch
them at all. That was the object of my inquiry.
Mr. Parron. This has reference to what they sold; the 1912 kill
is what they sold.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, those food skins were taken in October and
November, 1912. We have taken some since, during last October
and November, but they have not got down and will not until next
August.
Mr. Parron. They have not been sold ?
Mr. Exuiotr. No.
(Thereupon, at 11.45 a. m., the committee adjourned until Tuesday,
March 17, 1914, at 10 o’clock a. m.)
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
Hous OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., March 17, 1914.
The committee met at 10 o’clock, a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel
(chairman) presiding.
There were also present Mr. Stephens, Mr. Bruckner, and Mr.
McGuire.
Mr. McGurre. I have been requested by the chairman of the com-
mittee to furnish a copy of the telegram which I sent to Funsten
Bros. & Co., at St. Louis, and I have here a carbon copy of the
telegram. ”
WasHIncTon, D. C., March 13, 1914
FunstTen Bros. & Co., St. Louis, Mo.:
Will you kindly wire me, collect, for official use the condition of Alaska sealskins
sold by you last December—condition of skins with respect to whether they were
properly. skinned, blubbered, salted, and bundled for shipment? Wire Bird McGuire,
ouse of Representatives, Washington.
Brrp McGume.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 805
The CoarrmMan. I want to ask Mr. Elhott whether he has any
explanation to make as to this point?
Mr. Exxrorr. I have. Mr. Chairman, just before the committee
recessed last Saturday, 14th instant, over to this meeting to-day,
Mr. McGuire read into the record of this testimony the followin
telegram, which he had solicited, to wit—am I correct in that? Di
you not say you asked for it, Mr. McGuire ?
Mr. McGutre. As a result of a telegram which I sent.
Mr. Erxiorr. Yes; in other words, you asked him to send it ?
Mr. McGurre. A telegram requesting the information. I did not
solicit this telegram. I solicited information.
Mr. Exxiorr. I do not want to make a misstatement, but I got the
impression you solicited this telegram.
Mr. McGutre. I solicited information on that point.
Mr. Ex1iotr. Yes; that is right.
St. Louis, Mo., March 13, 1914.
Hon. Brrp S. McGuire,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:
Telegram received. Alaska sealskins handled by us for United States Govern-
ment last December did not have enough blubber left on the skins. This was the
only criticism made by the buyers in connection with the shipment and sale. They
were otherwise properly skinned, properly salted, and bundled for shipment.
Funsten Bros. & Co.
That the above-quoted telegram was deliberately prepared and sent
to deceive Mr. McGuire is self-confessed by the sender in the follow-
ing report, which Funsten Bros. & Co. gave to the fur trade of the
United States under date of December 16, 1913, to wit:
THE ST. LOUIS SALE.
The first public auction sale of the United States Government’s Alaska fur seals,
blue and white foxes, ever held in the United States took place December 16 in the
Funsten Fur Exchange, 115-117 South Second Street, St. Louis.
There were 260 buyers present from all parts of the world to attend this sale. The
buying was spirited throughout and the purchasers were prominent firms through-
ae the trade of America and Europe. The selling brokers were Messrs. Foulke &
ern.
FUNSTEN BROS. & CO.’S REPORT.
Sr. Louis, Mo., December 16, 1913.
Dear Sirs: We take pleasure in submitting the following report of our sale of the
United States Government’s fur seals, blue and white foxes, which were sold by us
at public auction in the Funsten Fur Exchange at St. Louis, Tuesday, December 16:
‘*The Alsaka fur seals sold 5 per cent higher than the London last October basis.
Ii the increased 10 per cent duty on dressed and dyed skins imported into the United
States were taken into consideration, the result would be 15 per cent higher than the
London last October basis, or 10 per cent below last London January sale of Alaskan
seals.’’
The above report of Funsten Bros. & Co. to the fur traders and
buyers of the United States is published in the Fur Trade Review,
New York, January 1, 1914, page 69.
Is there a word in it which suggests that telegram to Mr. McGuire
as sent by Funsten Bros. & Co. March 13, 1914, and read into this
record ? or
Is there a word in it which tells the traders and fur buyers the
reason why these skins sold lower December 16,.1913, by 10 per cent
than the same sort of seal skins sold in London on January 17, 1914?
a
806 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
No. Why? Because the truth hurt certain parties with whom
Funsten Bros. & Co. had very close relations—the truth hurt cer-
tain Government officials who had been busy with them as early as
1910 in getting this sale of Alaska fur-seal skins made by them in
St. Louis. That this telegram was deliberately prepared and sent to
Mr. McGuire by Funsten Bros. & Co. March 13, 1914, to deceive
him, or deceive this committee, the following proof of its being a false
statement is submitted.
When Funsten Bros. & Co. sold these skins as cited to Mr.
McGuire, in that telegram above quoted, December 16, 1913, the sale
was attended by representatives of the leading authoritative fur-
trade journals; these have all duly published their record of its prog-
ress and result. That Funsten Bros. & Co. have falsified that
record of this sale to Mr. McGuire, the following evidence of the fact
is found authoritatively published February 1, 1914, and never dis-
puted by anyone up to inte to wit: On page 182, Fur News Maga-
zine, New York, February, 1914, is the pillowing to wit:
The kill (not catch) of fur seals in 1913, as evidenced by the catalogue at St. Louis
sale, shows an extreme number of ‘“‘low” and ‘“‘cut” skins. This condition we con-
sider wholly unnecessary, as the seals were killed primarily for food and there was
no pressing need of hurry or lack of time to make proper selection with reference to
the fur, which was of more value and importance than the meat.
At the sale of fur-seal skins in St. Louis, December 16, 1913, the skins taken by the
Government, the offering comprised 1,898 skins, of which 680 graded as ‘‘low” and
‘‘cut,’’ or within a fraction of 36 per cent.
At the sale of fur-seal skins in December, 1908, when the skins were taken by the
North American Commercial Co., the catch comprised 14,965 skins, of which 2,456
graded as “low” and “‘cut,’’ or a little less than 164 per cent.
Mr. StepHeNs. On that point, what do you mean by ‘‘low”’ and
‘cut’ ?
Mr. Extiorr. I am coming to that. I am gomg to explain that.
I will bring that all out in this statement. I anticipated your
question.
Mr. StePHENs. All right.
Mr. Exxtiorr. Here is the complete, authentic record of that
‘criticism ’’—all the ‘‘criticism’’ which the buyers made at that sale.
Ts there a hint here in its text, so authoritatively published Febru-
ary 1, last, or a word that complains of those skins as not having
‘“enough blubber left’? on them ?
No; not a word. But they are criticized by the buyers for the
trade, because they were ‘‘cut,” “‘low,”’ and so faulty.
Why were they ‘‘cut”? Because all of the larger sized skins were
so ‘‘clean skinned” of blubber that in that close cutting off of this
blubber, the knives of the natives slip now and then, and ‘“‘cut” into
the skin, the true skin, the cutis vera.
Why were they also rated “low”? Because of the larger number
of small sized skins than the average of such a catch of 1,898 pelts
should have; that is, the proportion of yearling skins was too large
for the right average of such a small catch of 1,898 skins as compared
with that average in the last 20 years.
Therefore, Funsten Bros. & Co.’s telegram, in which they declare
that the ‘only criticism” found with the 1912 catch of 1,989 skins
sold by them, was that ‘‘not enough blubber” was ‘“‘left on those
skins,” is a deliberate falsification of the published record of fact
in the premises and as I have quoted that publication to this com-
mittee.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 807
It is, furthermore, plaimly so falsified by those dealers to meet the
demands of certain parties who have been busy since 1896 in falsify-
ing the real facts as to grades or sizes of seals killed since 1896, up
to date, in violation of law and regulations; and it also is apparent
that this dealer’s telegram has been inspired by those parties, and
has been improperly, though innocently, placed before this commit-
tee as a reputable statement of facts.
For the information of this committee [ wish to state that:
First, a ‘‘cut”’ skin is one which the knife of the native skinner has
cut into when flensing the blubber from it as he takes it from the
carcass.
When a skin is ‘‘clean skinned” and not ‘‘loaded”’ with blubber,
the native must use greater care and skill when removing it from the
body of the seal. If he is inattentive or unskilled, then often the
keen, razor edge of his knife will slice off a paring or ‘‘welt”’ of the
true skin. This welt, or ‘‘cut,” if it does not go through the cutis
vera and the epidermis, will, at least, make the work of the dresser
who unhairs this skin when given to him, more difficult; for he has to
guard against losing the fur over that cut (shave, or welt) in the skin
when he prepares the same for unhairing and dyeing. That adds to
the cost of dressing which otherwise would not be done. I have
found that this added cost for dressing when cut is rated at about
10 per cent of the first cost of a good skin. For instance, if a prime
skin is worth $40 at the sales without any blemish, then, if that same
skin were ‘‘cut,” it would be rated as such, and bring only $35, or, in
other words, it has depreciated $5 in value.
The term ‘‘low” is used in two senses. First, a “low” skin is one
which, although properly classed as to size—that is, length and girth—
has signs of pink “‘lips,” or raw edges and spots on the same; not
only on its outer edges, but on the edges of the two fore flipper holes
in the skin, and other defects, perhaps. Such a skin is much harder
to dress properly and evenly, than a ‘‘cut” skin, since every raw or
“pink lip” edge, has made that portion of the skin very difficult to
unhair without taking all the fur with it. That calls for a greater
length of time in which the most skillful dresser can properly dress it.
So when, for instance, a prime, or “‘small,’”’ or three-year-old skin is
rated at, say, $55 or $60, without any blemish, if it is found “‘low,”’
and so tagged, it will suffer a loss of nearly 50 per cent from its prime
value, or will bring but $30 or $35.
The next use of the word ‘‘low’ comes in this way: A ‘‘low
grade”’ for the entire catch as sold at the time, and so reported, and
published to the trade by the agents of that trade, means that the
proportion of little skins for the whole catch is much larger than it
ought to be; and that that excess of little skins in the sum total of
skins sold has reduced the average price per skins for the whole
catch to the figures quoted.
The relative amount of blubber which is upon the skins has never
been of the least concern to the buyers. They do not and never have
asked for more or less blubber on the skins. It is not necessary to
have any if the skin is properly salted. It is, however, generally
agreed that a skin with a coating of blubber is easier to remove
rapidly from the seal’s body without danger of cutting than one which
is clean skinned, even by the most expert of skinners. Therefore it
808 INVESTIGATION OF THE. FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
has been the habit ever since I first studied this question in 1872-
1874, on the Pribilof killing grounds, for the natives to be allowed to
take off the skins with a film of blubber varying in thickness from
one-tenth to one-eighth of an inch between their knives and the skin
proper. Thus this object of having more or less blubber adherent
to the skin is, first, to prevent the risk of accidental cutting in the
rush and fatigue of a heavy day’s work; and, second, it serves a useful
purpose also in preventing the skins from drying out too rapidly
when exhibited for sale.
The CuarrmMan. Mr. Elliott, it seems to me you have practically
gone over this part of your statement before.
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I have never gone over this. This is the first
time I have defined this to the committee.
The Coatrman. My idea was that you should merely answer this
telegram.
r. Exuiorr. Iam. Iam showing that it is false, and giving the
reasons why I have made that charge of falsehood to the committee,
so there can be no misunderstanding.
The CuarrMaNn. Do the papers you have before you refer to your
explanation ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. These papers cover this whole subject. I want to
end it at once, and for all, now, as far as 1 am concerned, so there will
be no doubt in any one’s mind as to what a “low” skin or a “cut”
skin, ora “blubber” skinis. I thinkit ought to goin; but, the place
to put it in is immaterial.
The CHarrMAN. It isimmaterial to me, but I thought perhaps you
could give more of a direct answer at this time.
Mr. Exxiorr. This is a direct answer to the falsification of the
trade journal by Funsten Brothers in their telegram. I think it is
important and necessary it should go right in here, now, in order to
make that man stand up and face these facts.
The CuarrMAN. Very well, unless there is some objection.
Mr. Exxtiotr. Because he has imposed upon a member of this com-
mittee, and I think it only fair that he should be answered. I do
not believe you ever had any idea
Mr. McGuire (interposing). I am the party to whom the telegram
was sent.
Mr. Extiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And in no respect have I been imposed upon.
Mr. Exviorr. I feel that this is an untrue statement.
Mr. McGuire. That may be, but do not say that I have been im-
posed upon.
Mr. Extiorr. You would not put it in if you knew that were so.
I know you wouldn’t, and therefore to make it clear I think it 1s im-
portant that my whole statement should go in now and let these
crentlemen see exactly what Mr. Funsten and his people have done.
The CuarrmMan. Well, unless there is some objection, proceed.
Mr. Exxiorr. I am perfectly willing to waii later, but I think it
would be better to put it in nght now.
The CuarrMan. Proceed.
Mr. Exxiorr. To prevent danger of cutting the skins is the real
object and service of ‘‘blubbering”’ the pelts. No amount of blubber
on the skin adds 1 cent to its value. A properly salted “‘clean’’
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 809
skin brings just as much as a properly salted “‘blubbered”’ skin, and
vice versa.
This telegram of March 13, 1914, to Mr. McGuire is not the first
appearance of Funsten Bros. & Co. as beg busy in trying to deceive
Congressmen.
On the 4th of January, 1512, Hon. Richard Bartholdt, during a
session of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said——
Mr. STEPHENS (interposing). Is that in a printed hearing ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes. See page 147, hearings on H. R. 16571, Jan-
uary 3 and 4, 1912, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to wit:
I desire to submit a statement prepared by an expert in the employ of Funsten Bros.
which I would like to have incorporated in the record. The scientific opinions ex-
pod in this statement coincide exactly with those presented by Mr. Lembkey and
r. Evermann.
This statement which Mr. Bartholdt describes, immediately fol-
lows his intreduction, as above, on pages 147, 148, 149, 150 of that
hearing.
It bears the earmarks of having been sketched out by Lembkey
and Evermann. On every page printed it carries the same untruths
and makes the same claims to kill seals on the basis of those untruths.
In short, it is a gross travesty on the facts, just as Lembkey and
EKvermann have put it into the records of this committee; and, just
as Mr. Bartholdt says, it agrees precisely with their opinions.
It shows, however, not only the apparent immediate connection
between Lembkey and Evermann in stimulating the sending of this
deceitful and false telegram to Mr. McGuire, on March 13, as quoted
above, but it pcints to the Hon. Charles Nagel, tco, for this expert
of Funsten Bros. has the following to say on page 148, to wit:
Secretary Nagel has made a personal study of seal lite and great credit is due him
and his department for the intelligent, fearless, and correct work that has been done
in handling the killing of seals.
On the occasion of the submission of the above statement of this
‘“‘expert’”’ of Funsten Bros. to the committee, by Mr. Bartholdt, Janu-
ary 4, 1912, Lembkey and Evermann had been busy January 3 and 4,
1912, in telling the committee what an outrage upon the fur-seal herd
would be committed if a close time of even five years was ordered for
it—‘‘that thousands of young seals”’ would be ‘‘ trampled under foot
and their mothers torn to pieces by the bulls’’ in the mad struggles
‘that would ensue between those bulls for control of the harems.”’
On the 20th of January following, in an executive session of this
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, between 4 o’clock p. m. and 7
p.m., Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce, appeared and gave his
full indorsement to this biological falsehood of his own agent’s in-
vention; he, too, had “‘personal knowledge”’ of it, he said; he ‘‘had
been on the islands,” ‘“‘observed the seals,” and ‘‘talked with the
natives.”
Mr. Charles Nagel was on the islands just four hours in August,
1911, and there then for the first time in his life, and has never been
there since.
Furthermore, on page 149, this expert of Funsten Bros. has this
to say:
Secretary Nagel himself is a great believer in protecting American commerce, and
it is known that his views are favorable to a policy of having the sealskins sold in an
American market by an American house, in preference to consigning them to an Eng-
lish house in an English market.
810 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Now, perhaps, Mr. Charles Nagel, fellow townsman of Funsten
Bros., St. Louis, has been consulted, too, with Lembkey and Ever-
mann, by the Funsten Bros. aforesaid; perhaps he has helped them
to prepare that telegram which the Hon. Bird 8. McGuire has read
into the record of this committee Saturday, March 14, last. Having
that “personal knowledge and study,’ which Funsten Bros. credit
him with, he would be a most competent adviser for the fur dealer’s
deceitful telegram, if they called him in. Why should they not con-
sult such an “‘ authority’?
I find that these gentlemen, Messrs. Foulke and Johnson, of St.
Louis, of the Funsten Bros. & Co., were busy here in this city, Wash-
ington, September 27, with Fish Commissioner Bowers and with Sec-
retary of Commerce and Labor Nagel.
Mr. StepHEeNns. What year?
Mr. Extiorr. 1910. Here is a dispatch to the St. Louis Globe
Democrat, dated ‘‘ Washington, September 28”’:
John D. Johnson and P. B. Foulke, of St. Louis, are in Washington in an endeavor
to bring to St. Louis the fur-seal business of the Government, which now has entire
charge of that important industry.
That is the same ‘‘expert’’ Mr. Foulke who prepared the telegram
which Mr. McGuire has read.
The Missourians called at the Department of Commerce and Labor late this after-
noon with Fish Commissioner Bowers, and the three talked over the subject with
Secretary Nagel.
The seal catch this year is estimated to be worth half a million dollars to the Gov-
ernment. Arrangements had already been made, however, for shipping the skins
to London, and they are now en route, probably having reached New York.
It appears that the sole reason London has for many years controlled the seal market
is that the British tanners and dyers have the only effective process for dyeing the
sealskins and extracting the hair which grows among the fine fur. The St. Louisians,
in submitting their proposition, stated that an Englishman was about to establish a
plant at St. Louis which would handle the business if it could be kept in this country.
Now I have finished my statement.
Mr. McGuire. Who employed Funsten Bros. & Co. to sell these
sealskins ?
Mr. Exxtiorr. I do not know. They are evidently employed by
the Government or they would not have done it. The Fish Com-
missioner can tell you that.
Mr. McGuire. When were they sold ?
Mr. Exxriorr. They were sold December 16 last.
Mr. McGuire. December 16, 1913?
Mr. Exxiottr. Yes; last.
Mr. McGuire. They must have been employed, then, after March
4,1913%
Mr. Extiorr. I do not know a thing about it. I never looked
into it. I have not the faintest idea. Until you read that telegram,
I never gave it the least concern.
Mr. McGuire. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have been requested by the
committee to produce the original of a purported copy which I
offered the other day of an examination of Mr. Elhott in a hearing
before the Committee on Ways and Means, March 28, 1884, page 36
of the hearings. I have here the original of that hearing before the
Ways and Means Committee.
The CHarrMAN. You might let Mr. Elliott look at the parts
referred to.
Mr. McGuire. Certainly [handing book to Mr. Elliott].
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 811
Mr. Extrotr. I see that statement in this publication here. I
never saw it before. This is the first time in my life I have ever
seen it.
The CHarrMaN. Is that your explanation ?
Mr. Exxtiotr. That is my explanation. I do not deny that
publication.
Mr. MoGurre. That is all.
Mr. Extiotr. I do not deny that publication; but, I have never
seen it until now, and have never seen those notes before.
Mr. McGuire. I was also requested to furnish the original of a
urported copy from which I read, hearing before Committee on
ferchant Marine and Fisheries, January 8, 1888, page 146. I have
here the original.
Mr. Exriotr. I do not question that. I did not yesterday. I am
familiar with that. I have seen all that and moreover I revised my
notes on that. The notes of that hearing were given to me, and I
revised them. Chairman Dunn allowed me to do that in his office.
This other set of ‘‘notes’”’ I never saw before.
Mr. McGurre. I believe you said the diminishing of the seal herd
in Alaska was caused by land and not by pelagic sealing.
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes, I said in 1890, that the prime evil was the land
pe, ably seconded by the pelagic hunters. I wanted both abol-
ished.
Mr. McGurre. In 1890?
Mr. Extiotr. Yes; that was the first time I ever brought in this
question of extermination of the herd, in my report of 1890.
Mr. McGurre. Since 1890 and up to the time of the discontinuance
of pelagic sealing
r. ELLIoTT (interposing). I have held the same views I expressed
in 1890. :
Mr. McGuire. What are those views, briefly.
Mr. Exziotr. That the primary cause of destruction of the herd
was the land killing; the primary cause. I have stated it here in
my report to Secretary Windom, November 19, 1874.
Mr. McGuire. That is the way I understood you.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir; you are entirely right; primarily, first, land
lnlling; second, pelagic hunting.
Mr. McGuire. You offered some testimony before the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, June 8, 1888 ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. Oh, yes.
Mr. McGuire. At page 140.
Mr. Exxtiotr. Yes; I do not question anything you read from that,
Mr. McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. This question was asked you: ‘‘Do you think that
protection in the waters away from the islands essential to the pro-
tection of the herd in the rookeries ?”’
Your answer was:
I think the indiscriminate hunting of seals in open waters of Bering Sea would
result in the extermination of these rookeries in anywhere from two to three year.
Do you remember when you made that answer ?
Mr. Exxiotr. I remember it distinctly.
Mr. McGurre. This question was asked you:
In spite of all the care we could take?
A. That would not have the slightest effect.
812 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
This question was then asked you:
You think simply making a reservation of the islands upon which the rookeries
exist and keeping other than authorized people away would not be sufficient pro-
tection?
A. It certainly would not be, and I can explain why. It is fair to assume that
very few of our people clearly understand what peculiar advantages a fur-sealing
schooner and her crew would enjoy in Bering Sea for the successful prosecution of
their errand, if unchecked. In order that the full significance and importance of
that action of our Government which arrests or restrains the pelagic sealer within
those waters may be perceived, I offer the following epitome. It is well understood
and unquestioned by those familiar with the subject:
(1) That the fur seal cf Alaska is obliged to annually haul out upon the Pribilof
Islands for the purpose of breeding and shedding its coat.
(2) That from the time of its departure from these islands in the fall of every year
up to that moment of its return to them the following spring it lands nowhere else.
(3) That it arrives en masse on these islands in June and July and departs from
them in a body during October and November.
(4) That when leaving the islands in the autumn it heads directly for and rapidly
travels out from Bering Sea into the waters of the north Pacific Ocean; its paths are
bee lines from the Pribilof group to and through the numerous passes of the Aleutian
Archipelago, the passes of Oonimak, Akootan, Oonalga, Oomnak, and the four moun-
tains being the most favored by it.
(5) That it returns to the Pribilof Islands from the broad wastes of the north Pacific
Ocean by these paths of departure.
Therefore, if you will glance at a map of Alaska you will observe that the conver-
gence of those watery paths of the fur seal as it traverses Bering Sea, going to and
from the seal islands, resembles the spread of the spokes of a half wheel; the
Aleutian chain forms the felly, while the hub into which the spokes enter and
meet is the small Pribilof group.
Mr. Exxuiorr. Very true.
Mr. McGuire. You state further:
Hence, it will be noted that as these watery paths of the fur seal converge in Bering
Sea, they, in so doing, rapidly and solidly mass together thousands and tens of thou-
sands of widely scattered animals at points 10, 50, and even 100 miles distant at
sea from their landing on the breeding rookeries. ;
Here, then, is the location and opportunity of the pelagic sealer, anywhere from 10
to 100 miles south of and distant from the seal islands. There is his chance to lay at
anchor over the shallow bed of Bering Sea, where he has the most “holding ground”
known to mariners, and where he can safely ride out the wildest gales, with no danger
of a lee shore, even if his tackle breaks, while on the other hand the immediate
vicinity of any pass cf the Aleutian Chain is too dangerous for a prudent sailor. The
tide rips there, the swift currents drift him in dense fogs, and the furious funneling
storms of wind and sleet will never permit him to safely hover about these openings.
Mr. Exvuiorr. Very true.
Mr. McGuire (reading):
But above them, 50 and 100 miles to the southward of the seal islands, in the watery
avenue of the returning fur seals, every June and July and August, he has a fine oppor-
tunity to shoot, to spear, and to net them until he shall have attained the full extent
of their utter extermination.
Mr. Exxriorr. That is what I believed in 1888, and do now.
Mr. McGuire. You do yet?
Mr. Exuiorr. Yes; I think they could commercially destroy them
yet.
Mr. McGuirk (reading) :
His power to destroy them is also augmented by the fact that these seals which are
most liable to meet his eye and aim are the female fur seals, which, heavy with young,
are here slowly nearing the land, soundly sleeping at sea by interval, and reluctant
to haul out from the cool embrace of the water upon their breeding grounds until
that day, and hour even, arrives, which limits the period of their gestation.
Mr. Exvuiort. Correct.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 813
Mr. McGurrz (reading):
The pelagic sealer employs three agencies with which to secure his quarry, viz:
He sends out Indians with canoes from his vessel, armed with spears; he uses shot-
ae and buckshot, rifles and balls; and last, but most deadly and destructive of all,
e can spread the ‘“‘gill net” in favorable weather.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes, sir; that is all right.
Mr. McGurre (reading):
With gill nets ‘‘underrun” by a fleet of sealers in Bering Sea, across these converging
paths of the fur seal, anywhere from 10 to 100 miles southerly from the Pribilof Group.
J am moderate in saying that such a fleet could utterly ruin and destroy those fur seal
rookeries now present upon the seal islands in less time than three or four short years.
Every foot of that watery roadway of fur-seal travel above indicated, if these men were
not checked, could and would be traversed by those deadly nets; and a seal coming
from or going to the islands would have, under the water and above it, scarcely one
chance in ten of safely passing such a cordon.
Mr. Expiott. I believe that.
Mr. McGuirz (reading):
Open those waters of Bering Sea to unchecked pelagic sealing, then a fleet of hundred
of vessels, steamers, ships, schooners, and what not would immediately venture into
them, bent upon the most vigorous and indiscriminate slaughter of these fur seals;
a few seasons of greediest rapine, then nothing would be left of those wonderful and
valuable interests of our Government which are now so handsomely embodied on the
seal islands; but which, if guarded and conserved as they are to-day, will last for an
indefinite time to come as objects of the highest commercial good and value to the
world, and as subjects for the most fascinating biological study.
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 shooting, 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. Ii the seal is shot dead instantly—killed instantly—then it
can be picked up in most every case; but not one 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 taking an accurate aim exceedingly
great and the result of clean killing very slender.
You are the author of that, are you?
Mr. Exviiorr. Yes, sir; that was a state paper which I first ad-
dressed to Secretary Bayard, dated ‘‘Smithsonian Institution, Decem-
ber 3, 1887,” and I reread it into this record of the Committee on the
Merchant Marine and Fisheries in 1888. In that I wanted to express
the danger to these rookeries (two years before I went up there in
1890), the full TUE of the danger which pelagic sealing had
to the commercial value of these rookeries, that they could destroy
that value in a few years, and I still repeat that. That is very differ-
ent from the extermination of the species which I was facing in 1890
on the islands by land killing by the lessees—very far from it.
The CuarrMan. Just in this connection, may I ask a question ?
Mr. McGuire. Yes.
The CHatrMan. When did pelagic sealing really commence ?
Mr. Exiiotr. In 1886 as an industry of note, and in 1887 I pre-
pared that letter forecasting, foreseeing, the whole ultimate end of it,
unless it was checked; that is, the ruin of the commercial value of
the herd.
The CuarrMan. I thought there was some testimony io the effect
that the pelagic sealing commenced in 1886 ?
Mr. Extiorr. No; they began in 1874, in a small way.
814 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. McGurrs. As to the destructiveness of pelagic sealing, I.
_ believe you state you have not changed your etait ue
Mr. Exxiorr. Not at all.
Mr. McGuire. And it was about that time that you testified ——
Mr. Exuiotr (interposing). I am against pelagic sealing. I was
one of the first opponents.
Mr. McGuire (continuing). That it would not be safe for the
Government to handle those islands.
Mr. Extiorr. I did not then know any better. I was sixteen years
away from the islands, and did not understand what changes had
been brought about, until I got up there in 1890. his
Mr. McGurre. And it was about that time you received about
$7,000 or more from those companies ?
Mr. Exuiorr. Years afterwards.
Mr. McGurre. I say, after that ?
Mr. Exxiott. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGurre. Before this company gave up its lease ?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes, sir; and I turned the company down after they
gave me money. I reversed their own desires.
Mr. McGuire. After they paid you, or after they quit paying you ?
Mr. Exxiotr. Before they paid me, I turned them down.
The CuarrMan. Mr. Elliott, in that connection I would lke you to
make a statement as to whether you are employed by anybody now,
or have been in years past.
Mr. Exxiotrr. [ have no idea of it. I have no idea of being em-
ployed by anybody now. ;
‘he CHArRMAN. Do you know anything about a pelagic sealers’
lobby ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Until that telegram of Jordan’s appeared I never
heard of such a thing. I was astonished and, at first, indignant, and
when I found what it meant I became very, very indignant at the
idea of my representing
Mr. McGuire. The hearings here have Mr. Elliott recorded as the
employee and representative of this sealing company.
The CHatrMANn. Of the Alaska Commercial Co. ?
Mr. McGuire. Thai is the way he is recorded in the hearings.
The CHarrMAN. I meant whether he had any interest now.
Mr. McGurre. Oh, I see.
Mr. Exrxiorr. Those ‘hearings’? I never saw. I never saw the
‘‘noies,’’? and I deny them as fictitious and padded.
Mr. McGuire. By the way, in order that we may know something
of the reputation of the men on that committee, as to whether they
would misrepresent anybody, I should like to read the names.
Mr. Exuiorr. Did they represent me——
Mr. McGurre (interposing). I said misrepresent. Here are the
names of the committee present: The chairman, Mr. Morrison, Mr.
Mills, Mr. Blount, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Hewitt, Mr. Herbert, Mr.
Loud, Mr. Jones, Mr. McKinley, and Mr. Hitchcock. Those were
the members of the committee.
Mr. McGurre. I have here the National Geographic Magazine, of
December, 1911, in which appears this paragraph:
If not a single male seal were to be killed on the islands or at sea during the next
five years, not a single additional seal would be produced as a result of that course.
If not a single male seal were to be killed on the islands or at sea during the next 20
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 815
years, not a single seal would be added to the herd that will not be added if the present
policy of restricted killing of surplus males is continued.
Do you agree with that statement ?
Mr. Exxtiotr, Whose statement is that ?
Mr. McGuire. Do you want to wait until you know who makes it -
before you state whether you agree with it or not ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I-want to know who is responsible for that statement.
Mr. McGuire. I will state that the present head of the Fisheries
Bureau made that statement in the National Geographic Magazine,
December, 1911.
The CHArRMAN. You mean the present Fish Commissioner ?
Mr. McGurrn. Yes. Do you agree with that statement ?
Mr. Exxiott. No; I do not.
Mr. McGuire. Now, then, Mr. Elliott, do you know Amos Allen ?
Mr. Exvtiortr. No; that is a great joke.
Mr. McGurre. I am inclined to think so myself.
Mr. Exxiortr. I first saw all those letters in Mr. Redfield’s hands
April 26, 1913. He had them in his hands and crushed them up and
threw them—well, I won’t say where, but he thought they were
rubbish.
The CHarrmMan. Now, you were asked whether you knew Mr.
Allen; what is your answer ?
Mr. Extiortr. I will say no.
Mr. McGuire. Did you ever have any conversation with him ?
Mr. Exxiorr. That is a man that was over there at the house
Mr. McGuire (interposing). Is that where you live?
Mr. Exriorr. J had a room there. It was a rooming house—a lot
of men there, coming and going all the time.
Mr. McGuire. Who kept that boarding house ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Mrs. McCork.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know where she is now ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I do not know just now. They have torn the house
down, but you can find out in the directory.
Mr. McGuire. I will ask you to look at this handwriting [handing
letter to Mr. Elliott]. Do you recognize that writing?
Mr. Exxiorr. This is one of the ie Mr. Redfield showed me.
It is not mine.
Mr. McGurre. It is not your handwriting ?
Mr. Extiott. It is not.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know whese it is?
Mr. Exrrorr. No; unless it is Allen’s—as he signs it.
The CuareMan. Is it supposed that it is the witness’s handwriting ?
Mr. McGuire. How is that?
The CoarrMan. Let me look at it.
(Mr. McGuire hands paper to chairman. )
Mr. Exxiiotr. You ought to read some of those letters.
Mr. McGurre. I have read them all. I will ask you, Mr. Ellott,
if you wrote a letter to Mr. Roy C. Andrews, Assistant Curator of
Mammals, Museum of Natural Tete of New York, Thursday,
December 19, 1912?
Mr. Exxrort. I have never written him but one letter, and I guess
he will never forget it. If you will read the letter, I can tell you.
Mr. McGuire. You did write him, then ?
816 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Extrorr. Oh, yes. He was a perfect stranger to me, and is -
now.
Mr. McGuire. I will read it (reading):
WasuHineTon, D. C., Thursday, December 19, 1912.
Mr. Roy C. ANDREWs,
Assistant Curator of Mammals,
American Museum of Natural History,
New York City.
"Dear Sir: Your letter to Mr. Allen has just been referred to me and as it is not
marked ‘‘ Personal” its of course for any public use which its recipient elects.
I don’t know much about whales myself, or about you, but I do know enough to
know that a man who can write as much untruth as you have, in so few words as you
have in this letter of the 18th instant to Amos Allen, is not a man mentally or morally
fit to appear before any tribunal of sensible men and pose as an authority on any
subject, not even whales.
And I further assert that if you ever do so appear you will come out as cheap and
mean as your associates Lucas and Townsend came out of this committee above cited.
You are my enemy and
I am yours, Henry W. Extiorr.
Did you write that letter ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I did, you bet you! Now read the letter he wrote
to ‘‘Amos Allen.”
Mr. McGurre. Did you and Amos Allen live at that place at the
same time ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I only saw him that one time in the hallway, when
he passed me that letter. That is the only time I ever saw him to
talk with him.
Mr. McGurre. And he handed you that letter ?
Mr. Exprorr. Yes. He introduced himself to me and said, ‘‘ Mr.
Elliott, I would like to show you a letter I have got.”
Mr. McGuire. And you never had met him before ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Well, [ have seen the man several times. He was
about here a good deal.
Mr. McGuire. You had not met him at your boarding house before
that ?
Mr. Eviiorr. No—it was not a ‘‘boarding house.” I had a room
there, and there were 15 or 20 men coming and going all the time
there, day and night. I did not know any of them.
Mr. McGuire. So he simply stopped you where ?
Mr. Exxiorr. In the hall, and he asked me to read that letter.
Mr. McGurre. And you read it?
Mr. Exuiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. And then you proceeded to answer it for him ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; I did not answer it for him at all. I gave that
fellow a turn for writing such a letter as that to Allen.
The CHarrMAN. Was it about you?
Mr. Exuiorr. «Yes, sir; reflecting on me. You get the letter, and
you will find that I was warranted in giving him that answer. I was
indignant. I did not care about his relations with the other fellow. I
will tell you who I think this man was. I thik he was a game
warden, or someone looking into the game laws. I have seen him
about here a good many times.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know where he is living now ?
Mr. Exuiotr. No.
Mr. McGuire. Where did you last see him ?
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 817
Mr. McGuire. Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you said
you had seen him since.
Mr. Exxiorr. Not to talk with him; not to have any personal con-
versation with him. I recollect afterwards seeing him at intervals
about the lobbies of the Capitol. That is the same bunch of letters
that Mr. Redfield had over in the Senate Committee on Fisheries
April 26, 1913. He said they were a lot of rubbish.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know why he took them there ?
Mr. Exxiorr. I met him there in an executive session of the Sen-
ate Fisheries Committee. He had those letters there, and after about
10 minutes spent over them, as you do here, he said they were rub-
bish, and he dropped them.
Mr. McGuire. And you were there? .
Mr. Exxiorr. | was there, invited by the chairman, Senator Thorn-
ton, opposing the nomination of Mr. Smith. I met Mr. Smith face
to face then and there in a four-hours’ executive session with the
Senators and Mr. Redfield. I gave them my objections to Mr. Smith,
and did so plainly.
Mr. McGuire. Did you know that these letters were not delivered
to the Department of Commerce until within the last two weeks,
when IJ asked for them, and he sent over to the committee for them ?
Mr. Exxiotr. That is the same bunch that Mr. Redfield had at
the meeting on April 26, last year.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know when they were obtained from the
committee ?
Mr. Evxiotr. No; never until this moment have I known where
they were, or thought about it.
Mr. McGuire. Were you opposed to the appointment of the
present Fish Commissioner ?
Mr. Ex.iotr. I was and I am now. I do not believe he is the
proper man.
Mr. McGuire. Secretary Redfield had these letters before the
committee ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; as part of his proposition for Mr. Smith; but
he withdrew them, all right.
Mr. McGuire. Did you make any objection to the Senate com-
mittee to Mr. Smith’s confirmation after Mr. Redfield got hold of
these letters ?
Mr. Exxiorr. How could I? I agreed to his confirmation in this
executive session.
Mr. McGure. You did not agree to stop your fight on Mr. Smith
until Secretary Redfield got hold of these letters and filed them with
the committee ?
Mr. Exxiotr. He did not ‘‘file’ them. He said they were rub-
bish; he withdrew them, I say, and then took up a better line of
defense for Smith.
Mr. McGuire. How did he withdraw them unless he had first
filed them ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I understand that he withdrew them without filing
them. He took them before the committee and then did not file
them.
Mr. McGuire. Then there was nothing to withdraw ?
Mr. Exxrrorr. No, sir; he regarded them as rubbish and did not
press them.
53490—14 52
818 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
The CuarrMan. Where did you get the letters, Mr. McGuire?
Mr. MoGuire. If the chairman remembers the testimony of Mr.
Clark, who testified before the committee some time ago, he will
remember about these letters. These are the letters with respect to
which Mr. Clark testified, the Amos Allen letters; that he had turned
them over to Mr. Redfield and that they were now in Mr. Redfield’s
ossession. {[ first obtained the consent of Mr. Clark to get these
etters, and I wrote to Mr. Redfield for them. Their first reply was,
I think, that the letters were before the committee, but that they
would get them immediately. I have the letter here transmitting
these letters, signed, I think, by the chief clerk cf the Department of
Commerce, stating that they had obtained them at my request. I
got them from the Secretary of Commerce.
Mr. Exxiorr. That is right. He had them and took them away
with him or left them, as I did all my papers in opposition to Smith;
Tleft a large number. I withdrew my opposition to Mr. Smith solely
on the ground that the secretary stated he would carry out the plans
of this House committee; that being pledged to the Senators by Mr.
Redfield, I told him 1 did not care then whom he appointed, and I
' do not now have any care about it. J said I would rather have Mr.
Redfield’s word that he would carry out the plans of this committee
than to have any man of my own appointment. Then a great deal
more passed between the Secretary and myself, and we came to a
perfect understanding.
Mr. McGurre. Did you ever write any letters to which you signed
the name ‘“‘Julius’’?
Mr, Exxiotr. No.
Mr. McGuire. You heard the testimony of Mr. Clark before the
committee ?
Mr. Evxuiorr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. And the reference he made to the letter written
and signed ‘‘ Julius’ ?
Mr. Exiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You were not the author of those letters, I believe
you stated ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No.
Mr. McGuire. Now, you stated the other day that the reason you
weighed those skins, salted them for shipment, and tied them up in
2’s and weighed them that way was because that was the way they
weighed them when they reached London. Is that right ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. Oh, no; that is the way they reach them. When
they reached London they were opened out, and weighed in hun-
dreds, not individually.
Mr. McGurre. One hundred at a time ?
Mr. Expiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You stated that they were weighed with the salt
on them.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes.
Mr. McGurre. You stated the other day that the salt was on there ?
Mr. Exxuiorr. Oh, yes; there is a good deal of the curing salt on
them as they open them out and “book” them for sale in London;
nearly all of it.
Mr. McGutre. I have here a letter in reply to a letter from Mr.
Lembkey to Mr. Fraser, dated January 28, 1914. I will read it:
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 819
OrricE or ALFRED FRASER,
20 Exchange Place, New York, January 29, 1914.
Water I. Lempxey, Esq.,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 28th inst., I beg to state that Messrs. C. M.
Lampson & Co. do not weigh the sealskins until after same have been sorted, conse-
quently 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 v ery little of same adheres to the skins
when they are weighed.
The weight of each skin is not taken separately, but the dicerent sizes are weighed
in lots of 50 and av eraged.
Yours, truly,
ALFRED FRASER.
Mr. Extiotr. That is entirely correct, and not different materially,
from what I have stated. And I only oot it, as I said, the other day,
from a gentleman who attended those sales, and whom I named in
my testimony.
‘Mr. McGuire. Now, you stated in your testimony that you never
sought employment from the Government.
Mr. Exxiotr. Not “‘from the Government’’—I must have sought
employment when I went up there as a Government agent. Did I
say “I never sought employment from the Government?” No; I
said I did seek employment when I went to the islands. I had to go
as a Government employee.
Mr. McGuire. Do you know how many times you sought employ-
ment ?
Mr. Extiorr. I did not seek it in that sense. 1 sought it simply
for the purpose of getting these collections first, for the Smithsonian
Institution.
Mr. McGuire. Since your employment with the Government has
been discontinued have you since sought employment ?
Mr. Exxiorr. No; [ can not remember seeking employment since,
unless you would call that engagement I made with John Hay, where
I offered, if he would take up a certain plan of action, to cooperate
with him in protecting the fur seal; the treaty that is in effect to-day
is the result of that action, and it is authoritatively known as the
“Hay-Elhott treaty of mutual concession and joint control.” It 1s
that to the letter.
Mr. McGuire. Do you remember a letter you wrote to C.S. Ham-
lin March 6, 1895?
Mr. Extiorr. Yes; I wanted to be a member of the commission.
I wanted to go up there. I did not like the idea of one man going up
there—and he an ignorant man like Jordan—without anybody that
understood the question.
Mr. McGutre. Then you did seek employment of the Government ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Only in that way. I wanted to go up and get the
facts and come right back. I objected to the idea of one ignorant
man and a few clerks going up there. I wanted three men that under-
stood the subject.
Mr. McGuire. You did write the letter, then ?
Mr. ExxiorT. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. Did you ever ask John G. Carlisle for employment ?
Mr. Exriorr. I never suggested it; it was never in my mind at all.
Mr. McGuire. Did you write a letter from Cleveland, Ohio, 317
Detroit Street, November 6, 1893% Do you remember doing that?
820 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Mr. Exuiott. Read it; I can not say.
The CHarrMAN. You should read the contents of the letter so that
he can refresh his recollection.
Mr. McGuire. Yes; I will.
Mr. Exiotr. I have written several letters to Secretary Carlisle,
but I do not remember asking for employment. I do not think I did.
_ Mr. McGuire. I have here a copy of a letter which I will read:
317 Derroir STREET, CLEVELAND, OHIO,
: November 6, 1893.
Hon. J. G. CARLISLE, :
Secretary of the Treasury.
Dear Sir: The annexed press dispatch tells me in language plain that the com-
mercial ruin of our fur seal preserves on the Seal Islands of Alaska has been thoroughly
effected during the last year; it was well under way when I left the islands in 1890—
the brief respite given to the animals on land since then has not and will not preserve
the value of the rookeries—terrible slaughter at sea will continue next year and there-
after for a few seasons more until the millions of female seals and their young which I
saw in 1890, together with the 80,000 or 100,000 young and older males——
Mr. Exriiotr (interposing). I did not say ‘‘millions of females.”
That is a mistake.
Mr. McGuire. It says, ‘‘until the million of female seals.”
Mr. Exuiotr. No; there were then about 549,000 females—a
million females and pups altogether. There is a mistake there.
Mr. McGuire (continuing):
until the million of female seals and their young which I saw in 1890, together with
the 80,000 or 100,000 young and older males—until they are so reduced in number
that it will not pay to pursue them.
I am well satisfied, from my long experience, that were I to start out with the pelagic
sealing fleet next January from Victoria and Puget Sound, follow it up to its rendezvous
at Unalaska, and watch its work around the islands during next August and Sep-
tember, that I could lay before you a statement of facts that would clearly show the
utter uselessness of attempting, under the existing regulations——
Mr. Exuiorr. That is right. I recall that letter.
Mr. McGuire (continuing) :
to restore these rookeries to a paying basis in so far as revenue to the Public Treasury
is concerned.
To carry out the police regulations on sea that the Bering Sea decision calls for will
cost this Government of ours not less than $250,000 to $400,000 annually, provided
they are moderately undertaken—much more, if fully undertaken.
The revenue from the islands next season will not go over $200,000, even if you give
the lessees permission to kill every male seal that they can find up there over 1 year
of age and under 5, and make them pay their full $10 per skin taken; they possibly
might get 25,000 such seals—if they do, you can depend upon it, they will not be able
to get 15,000 such seals in 1895, and still less in 1896, winding up in 1897 with a com-
plete collapse.
I am, very truly, your friend and servant,
Henry W. Exuiorr.
P. S.—If yearling male seals are taken on the islands next summer, I believe that
between 25,000 and 30,000 such seals, or 44-pound skins can be secured also; but such
killing will be the end of the business.—H. W. E.
Mr. Extiorr. I will say right there, that my idea in the writing of
that letter was to get Secretary Carlisle so thoroughly informed that
he would set aside the Bering Sea rules and see the nonsense of them,
and move to have a reopening of the case—anything to get these men
to understand that we had got to stop killing both on land and sea
for seven or eight years.
Mr. McGurre. I understood you to say that there had been very
little killing since 1890.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 821
Mr. Exxiotr. On land, not at sea.
Mr. McGutre. That is, pelagic sealing ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; proportionately, the killing has been just as
heavy. Of course, the figures in the trade would not show it. I
labored with Mr. Hamlin as hard as I could to get a better commis-
sion than the Jordan commission. I did not believe that one ignor-
ant man and some clerks was a proper commission for this work,
wanted men with strong virile minds, like Elhott Cones, Theo. N.
Gill, and E. D. Cope (of Philadelphia). I wanted big, strong, brainy
men; not one ignorant man and a few clerks.
Mr. McGuire. I believe you stated that you did write to John Hay ?
Mr. Exxiorr. Yes; I opened negotiations with him.
Mr. McGuire. Asking to be employed. Now, then, you did write
to these three men—Hamlin, Carlisle, and John Hay—asking for
employment?
Mr. Exxuiotr. Yes; in that way; employment for that specific pur-
pose; to get these fac ts, so that these men could act quickly.
Mr. McGurre. Did you write to John Hay, asking that arrange-
ments be made for the purpose of sending somebody up there?
Mr. Exrrorr. No; the whole series of ‘letters between John Hay
and myself, beginning i in Apri!, 1900, and ending March 14, 1905,
carried only one or two references to appropriations. The appro-
priations were made in 1904. Then we immediately went to work;
but sickness took him away March 14, 1905, just as we had perfected
the treaty.
Mr. McGuire. I will ask you if you made this statement in 1902
before the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Extiotr. In 1902?
Mr. McGuire. Yes; February 18.
Mr. Exztiotr. Yes; I revised those notes. They are all right.
Mr. McGuire (reading):
Provision for the appointment by the President of two commissioners, to embody
the largest acquaintance and most extended experience, besides being an educated
man in the premises.
Did you make that statement ?
Mr. Evxiotr. No; Mr. Hamlin made that statement, and I thought
it had better go out; but it was kept in.
Mr. McGurre. But that was your statement.
Mr. Exxiorr. I know; but Mr. Hamlin put it in and I did not care to
antagonize Mr. Hamlin, because we had to work together at that time
to get something done.
Mr. McGuire. Mr. Elliott, on page 5, Senate Document 407,
Sixtieth Congress, first session, you charge that certain Senators,
Congressmen, and department officials have been suborned into al-
lowing sea butcheries of the fur-seal herd. What Senators were
suborned ?
Mr. Exxuiotr. Well, that was—I do not like to name them.
Mr. McGuire. Was Senator Morgan one of them ?
Mr. Exxiotr. No. They are all in “Senate Document 407,” and
I want to put that in the record as my answer.
Mr. McGuire. I will read this about Senator Morgan: “This old
Senator Morgan in a fit of pique sat up all night in the Senate Chamber
in order to rise with that single cbjection which was necessary to
throw this Dingley bill over on “the calendar.”
822 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
Mr. Exxiorr. I did say that; and that is true.
Mr. McGuire. I will ask you if in turn Mr. Morgan “made this
statement:
I know Mr. Elliott, whom the British Government has dubbed ‘‘Professor.”’ I
have respect for his character and sprightliness. He is painter in water colors of no
mean pretentions, but his use of color does not stop with his canvas. It enters into
all he says, and makes him too vivid an enthusiast for a safe reliance on questions of
measurements, statistics, and facts.
‘That is from the Tribunal of Arbitration, Paris, volume 1, page
108.
Mr. Exxiotr. Yes; aero is correct. I want Senate Document 407
put mto the record, since Mr. McGuire has read it. I want it all to
vo in.
~ (The paper referred to follows:)
[Senate Document No. 407, Sixtieth Congress, first session.]
Fur-SEAL Herp or ALASKA, 1868-1908.
Mr. Foraker presented the following paper by Mr. Henry W. Elliott, of Lakewood,
Ohio, on the fur-seal herd of Alaska.
een 25, 1908, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be
rinte
E The official record of the loot and ruin of the fur-seal herd of Alaska. A brief and
concise chronological abstract showing the salient points of progress in events leading
up to the present status of the fur-seal negotiations from their inception to date,
1868-1908. [Taken from the official records of Congress, of the State and Treasury
Departments, and other authentic sources. |
1868: The Pribilof or Fur Seal Islands of Alaska are formally and officially taken
possession of by agents of the Government of the United States, and declared by
them to be in danger of excessive killing, etc.
1869: The Pribilof Islands are made a Government reservation by act approved
March 4, 1869.
1870: The Pribilof Islands are leased for a term of 20 years to the Alaska Commercial
Co., of San Francisco, under provisions of act approved July 1, 1870.
1872-73: First biological survey of the fur-seal herd is made on the Pribilof Islands
by Henry W. Elliott under the joint auspices of the Smithsonian Institution and the
United States Treasury Department.
1874: Review of the Elliott survey of 1872-73 ordered by act approved April 22, 1874,
and made by Lieut. Commander Washburn Maynard, United States Navy, and Henry
W. Elliott. This survey confirms the survey of 1872-73 and declares the presence of
at least 4,500,000 fur seals of all classes on the breeding and hauling grounds of the
Pribilof Islands during the season of 1874.
1886: First appearance of organized pelagic sealing fleet in Bering Sea—two Ameri-
can and three British vessels. Three British vessels, the Caroline, the Onward, and the
Thornton, and one American, the Angel Dolly, are seized and confiscated by United
States revenue marine agents; but the protests of marine lawyers in Victoria and
San Francisco against the legality of this seizure were so strong that in—
1887: A large number of British and American vessels went into Bering Sea. Again,
seven of them were seized on the ‘‘high seas” and all sent to Sitka for trial. There they
were duly condemned, fines levied, ‘ete., in the United States district court by Judge
Dawson.
1888: Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, ordered the release of all those British vessels
aforesaid seized in the open waters of Bering Sea during 1886-87, and the remission of
fines, etc. Mr. Bayard then advanced the plan of an international close time for
hunting of fur seals, which would prevent the killing of these animals at sea during
their breeding season. He was well recéived, and everything was going to his satis-
faction when that political scandal over the Murchison letter in September, 1888,
caused an abrupt rupture between the British ambassador, Sir L. 8. West, and the
Cleveland Administration. All negotiations then ended forever in so far as Mr.
Bayard was concerned.
1889: Mr. Blaine succeeds Mr. Bayard on March 4. He at once renews the orders of
seizure abandoned by Mr. Bayard. A number of British schooners are seized in
Bering Sea, a ‘‘prize crew” of only one man put upon each, and then, after taking all
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 823
skins found on board, these sealing schooners are then ordered to proceed direct to
Sitka and report for trial there. The vessels, however, all disobey this order and sail,
instead, for their home port, Victoria, as soon as they leave Bering Sea. Their return
and story raises an immense uproar throughout all Canada.
1890: The printed protest of Lord Salisbury and the threat on his part to have a
British gunboat convoy the British sealing fleet this year if Mr. Blaine persisted in
his policy of seizure on the high seas caused Mr. Blaine to secretly countermand the
seizure orders in so far as giving notice to our people went; the Victoria sealers were,
however, duly advised of this action by their agentsin London. Mr. Blaine then pro-
ceeded to justify his action in a contra bonos mores letter to Salisbury; but unfortu-
nately for Blaine, through his ignorance he quoted certain worthless figures and
reports of an incompetent and unworthy United States Treasury agent, who had denied
these same figures and facts in another official report. In the meantime, the Secretary
of the Treasury, Wiliam Windom, in cooperation with Congress, sends Henry W.
Elliott up to the Pribilof Islands to review and report to him upon the condition of
affairs thereon [act approved Apr- 5, 1890]. Mr. Elliott submits his report November
19, 1890; he declares the herd reduced from 4,500,000 seals in 1874 to a scant million
in 1890; he urges a modus vivendi whereby for seven years a complete suspension
of all seal killing on the islands and in the sea shall be agreed to by Great Britain and
the United States; in the meantime, a joint commission of British and American ex-
perts shall visit the islands, and after full investigation thereon to agree upon a proper
method of joint control of the killing of seals when that work might be resumed after
the herd was restored to its normal form and number. During this interval of Mr.
Elliott’s work Mr. Blaine did nothing; but finally, ignoring Mr. Elliott’s reeommenda-
tions, he, under date of December 17, 1890, offered to submit the whole question in
dispute to arbitration; if Her Majesty’s Government, however, would accept his
proposal that within a zone of 60 miles surrounding the Pribilof Islandsall pelagic seal-
ing should be prohibited throughout the year, then he was directed to say that our
Government would deem that extent of protection full, ample, and all that we desired.
Elliott protests, and calls attention to the fact that the ‘‘60-mile zone’’ is utterly
insufficient—that he had told Mr. Blaine in November, but that the whole of Bering
Sea, at least, must be closed to pelagic killing, since the seals went at frequent inter-
vals 200 miles away from the islands for fish all through the breeding season.
1891: Lord Salisbury accepts Mr. Blaine’s proposal for arbitrating, as outlined in
the letter of December 17 aforesaid; he also insisted upon the adoption of Elliott’s
modus vivendi, which Mr. Blaine had ignored; public opinion and Mr. Elliott’s
exposure of this attempt of Mr. Blaine to let the land and sea butchers have full
swing while the lawyers were arbitrating caused President Harrison to overrule Blaine
and order up the modus vivendi; June 14, 1891, it is agreed upon and proclaimed in
Washington.
A joint commission is sent to the Pribilof Islands; Sir George Baden-Powell and
Dr. George M. Dawson for Canada; C. Hart Merriam and Thomas C. Mendenhall for
the United States.
The United States commissioners stay just nine days on the islands.
The British commissioners spend 23 days on the islands, then visit the Russian seal
islands; they meet the United States agents in Washington, and in—
1892: Go into conference and fail to agree on a single fact other than the perfunctory
statement that ‘‘the seals are greatly diminished at the hands of man.”’
The Bering Sea Tribunal of Arbitration is constituted February 29, 1892, and termed
the ‘‘treaty of Washington,”’ etc.; the Elliott modus vivendi of 1891 is ordered again
for 1892.
1893: The award of the Bering Sea Tribunal is made August 16 at Paris; it denies
our claims, but prescribes a series of rules and regulations to govern the taking of fur
seals at sea; our agents claim that they ‘‘have secured a great victory’’ and that
‘pelagic sealing has been practically abolished in these regulations.’’ Elliott alone
publicly dissents, and declares that ‘‘these rules are utterly idle and useless—that
they do not protect but facilitate the destruction of the herd.’’ [See New York Times,
Tribune, August 17, 1893.]
1894: The rules of the Bering Sea Tribunal are put into effect April 24; by the end
of November the complete failure of their working to serve this purpose for which they
were enacted is self-confessed by the enormous and vastly increased catch of the
pelagic hunters for this season, which breaks the highest records known since this
industry was first really organized in 1886.
On December 11, 1894, Mr. Dingley, stung by this record of perfect failure, reads a
letter to the House of Representatives addressed to him by Henry W. Elliott, detail-
ing the causes for this failure of these regulations, etc.; he announces to the House
824 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
that he will soon introduce a bill to relieve the shame and misery attendant upon
this collapse of the work of the Bering Sea Tribunal.
1895: Mr. Dingley, after full understanding with Secretary of State Gresham, intro-
duces a bill (H. R. 8633, Rept. 1849) to prevent the extermination of fur-bearing
animals in Alaska; it is passed in the House after full debate, but does not reach the
Senate in time for action there prior to the sine die adjournment March 4, 1895.
1896: Mr. Dingley reintroduces his bill as H. R. 3206, Report No. 451; it is passed
iu House unanimously, after full debate, February 25; it is reported from the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee by Senator Frye, March 4, and under a special order
for March 11; then Richard Olney, who has come into the State Department by the
accident of Judge Gresham’s death, ask Senator Frye to take no action on this bill,
since he (Olney) has ‘‘successfully reopened negotiations with Great Britain,’”’ and
the passage of this Dingley bill ‘‘will greatly embarrass if not defeat these negotia-
tions.’’ (!) Senator Frye has no alternative; thus bill is dropped.
On June 14 Olney asks the Secretary of the Treasury to send up a special commis-
sion ‘‘to informally meet” with a British commission on the Seal Islands of Alaska.
Dr. D.S. Jordan and four ‘‘expert” clerks are appointed to represent the United States,
and Prof. Darcy W. Thompson and one ‘‘expert” clerk are selected by the British
Government.
Dr. Jordan submits a ‘‘preliminary report,’’ November, 1896, to the Treasury De-
partment, in which he says that he finds 450,000 seals of all classes on the islands;
that he wants to brand all of the female seals, since it is feasible and will destroy the
value of their skins, and so put the pelagic hunters out of business, and that the Brit-
ish agent was in full accord with him, etc.
1897: Dr. Jordan again visits the islands, but the British agent flatly repudiates any
agreement in 1896 with him; he steers clear of it this year; Jordan takes a team of col-
lege boys up with him; an absurd and costly attempt to brand the seals is made, and
it is witnessed in silent contempt by the British agent.
Mortified and repulsed, Jordan is about to quit when he falls into the hands of an
‘astute diplomat,” ex-Secretary of State John W. Foster; by him he is steered into
a ‘‘joint agreement” with Prof. Thompson ‘‘as to conclusions of fact.’? This unfor-
tunate ‘‘agreement,”’ for the fur seals, was signed in the Department of State November
17, 1897, by Jordan and Thompson; in this State paper Dr. Jordan surrenders every
point at issue to the Canadian demand.
1898: Stimulated by their successes in dealing with Jordan, the Canadians agree
to the creation of a ‘‘high joint commission,’’ on June 14; it consists of five members
on each side; to this commission this fur-seal question is referred for settlement,
along with 10 or 12 other issues also in dispute, many of them long outstanding.
This commission holds two sessions in 1898, one in Quebec and one in Washington.
Without agreement of any kind on any subject these sessions adjourn to a final meeting.
1899: The Anglo-American High Joint Commission finally adjourns in Washington,
January 29, without day of reassembling; it adjourns in hopeless disagreement on
every point submitted to it for agreement. ne
1900: After learning from Hon. John A. Kasson, a member of this defunct commission,
that no result of any sense or value would ever come from this commission, even if it
were reassembled, in so far as the cause of preserving the fur-seal herd was concerned,
Henry W. Elliott, on April 2, addressed a detailed statement to Hon. John Hay,
Secretary of State. In this statement Mr. Elliott outlines a plan for reopening and
putting aside the erroneous and mischievous conclusions of the Jordan-Thompson
agreement; he proposes a plan for action which will enable Mr. Hay to successfully
reopen the case.
1900: Secretary Hay replies under date of April 30, saying that if Congress will make
an appropriation on its own initiative, and order that expert work of Mr. Elliott, that
he will be glad to cooperate and put it into effect. Mr. Elliott then came to Washing-
ton, May 3, but the session was too far advanced to adjournment for the consideration
of new legislation, when said legislation was bitterly opposed by the land and sea
butchers of the fur-seal herd, whe had suborned certain Senators, Congressmen, and
department officials to prevent such legislation.
1901: Short session; no time in which to overcome this opposition.
1902-3: Mr. Elliott secures, on February 2, 1903, the passage of House bill 13387
in the House; but on February 17, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sena-
tor Charles W. Fairbanks deliberately tells the committee that this bill is not needed;
that the fur-seal question has been all agreed upon in the High Joint Commission, and
only waits the formal publication by that commission when it reassembles; he assures
the committee that this reconvention of the commission is to take place soon after the
4th of March (1903). This statement of Senator Fairbanks was an untruth in eve
respect—a square and wholesale fabrication on his part, to defeat the pending bill.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 825
Under the circumstances, his colleagues could not dispute his false report; therefore
they took no action on this bill, at his request.
1903: Mr. Elhott, openly asserting that there was no truth in Senator Fairbanks’s
statement, as above quoted, then secured the insertion of an item of $20,000 in the
pending sundry civil bill for the purpose of ‘‘making a new examination into the
condition of affairs on the seal islands of Alaska,’’ etc.; but on June 20 (1903), when
Mr. Elliott asked Mr. Hay to take this work up, the Secretary replied that he was un-
able to go ahead with it as long as Senator Fairbanks, who, as chairman of the Ameri-
can membership of the Anglo-American High Joint Commission, ‘‘stands over me and
assures me that this subject 1s all settled and will be soon published by the commission,’?
“the says the commission will soon reassemble.”’
A special subcommittee of the United States Senate made an extended trip of in-
spection over Alaska during July and August and visited the seal islands (Messrs.
Dillingham, Nelson, Burnham, and Patterson). They found the condition of affairs
there exceedingly bad.
1904: This special Senate committee charged with Alaskan affairs made its report
January 19, and urged a reopening of the question of fur-seal protection with Great
Britain. To this end Senator W. P. Dillingham, chairman of the committee, intro-
duced a bill which is finally passed in both Houses and is approved April 8.
On the 9th of April the committee wait upon Secretary Hay and urge him to take up
this matter under the authority of this act of April 8 aforesaid. Mr. Hay agreed to,
but he asked Mr. Elliott to get the Senators to agree with him (Elliott) first upon any
plan of action; then he (Hay) would carry it into effect.
1904: On the 12th April Mr. Elliott took a general plan for the suspension of all kill-
ing of fur seals on land and in the sea for a period of 10 years, duly signed up by the
Senators. In the meantime the details of how the work of killing seals should be re-
sumed at the end of that period of rest; these details should be considered and then
agreed upon in turn.
Secretary Hay took this up at once with Sir Mortimer Durand, the British ambassa-
dor, and on the 26th of April it was officially given to him; but it was rejected at Ottawa
in July, because it gave no assurance to the Canadian Government that the terms
of agreement would be acceptable after this long period of prohibition of pelagic sealing
rights to British subjects. The Canadian ministry objected on the following grounds:
(a) When the killing is resumed then the Canadian Government will get nothing out of
it of any substantial gain to itself, and only arouse the ill will of its own people who are
now engaged in fur sealing, and who say that as Canadians (1) they have vested rights
in this business which can not be sold or denied to them; and (2) they are well satisfied
with existing conditions; and (3) there is no danger of extermination to the fur-seal
herd of Alaska from the effects of their hunting.
When fully informed of these objections, Mr. Elliott then, on November 30, 1904,
outlined to Mr. Hay the plan of mutual concession and joint control which, in his
opinion, we must offer to Canada, or else lose the case completely. Mr. Hay said that
any agreement which the senatorial committee might sign up in the premises would
be approved by him, but every detail must bein writing. Mr. Elliott set to work on
these details, calling in [at the suggestion of Mr. Hay] Senator Platt of Connecticut,
and [of Gen. Dillingham] Senator Foraker, of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations
Committees. On the 22d of February—
1905: He was able to give Mr. Hay a draft of the senatorial agreement on these
terms of mutual concession and joint control. Being at that hour very busy with a
sudden demand upon his time made by a turn in the San Domingo business, Mr.
Hay asked Elliott to defer this sealing-treaty paper for a week or two, until he should
have more leisure to discuss its details.
On the 7th of March Mr. Elliott took the subject up again with Secretary Hay. He
approved the terms. He then said that he now desired to have these details ap-
proved by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, since they were largely matters of
business detail which properly belonged to that department; he desired this plan to
be submitted to that department by the Senators with a request on their part that
Secretary Metcalf approve it and give it, so indorsed, to the President. He asked
Mr. Elliott to have this done.
1905: On March 17 the senatorial committee addressed a letter to Secretary Met-
calf, inclosing a memorandum which itemizes in detail the terms of a plan of mutual
concession and joint control for the full, fair, and final settlement of the fur-seal
guestion. This committee asks the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to approve
this plan and give it, so approved, to the President, etc.
In the meantime, Mr. Hay is prostrated on March 9 by a severe illness; he leaves
the State Department on March 15 and never returns to resume his official duties
there; he dies at his summer home in New Hampshire on July 1, 1905. Mr. Elliott
826 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
is officially informed that nothing can be done in this fur-seal matter until Mr. Hay’s
successor qualifies and takes charge of the same.
1905: October 20.—Mr. Elliott places this unfinished business of the fur-seal settle-
ment, above cited, in the hands of Elihu Root, the new Secretary of State, who did
not take up these routine duties until the 3d of October, or appear himself at the
State Department. Mr. Root takes the papers from Mr. Elliott’s hands; assures him
that he will proceed at once with the business. On the 21st of October, 1905, Mr.
Elliott assures First Assistant Secretary Bacon that this plan of mutual concession
and joint control, above cited, can be successfully negotiated in six weeks’ time if it
is at once placed in Sir Mortimer Durand’s hands for that purpose by Mr. Root. [Mr.
Elliott offered to give his expert services to the task and go himself to Ottawa.] -
Did Secretary Root do so? No; he has done nothing on that line of action, abso-
lutely nothing, up to Friday, February 21, 1908. Witness the following proof of this
nonaction:
[‘‘Special dispatch to The Globe.’’]
[1908:] “‘Ottawa, February 21.—The question of the protection of the seal fisheries
of the Pacific, now threatened with rapid extermination, was discussed at some length
in the senate to-day. Hon. Mr. Scott, secretary of state, made a strong pronounce-
ment on the subject, declaring that sealers were now acting like a band of pirates.
* * * He added that Canada was quite ready to enter into negotiations with the
United States with a view to the adoption of mutually protective regulations. * * *
‘Hon. Mr. Scott said that Canada was ready to take the matter up whenever there
was a proposition from the United States. There had been no such proposal up to the
present. His remarks were inspired by the existing condition of the sealeries, which
did not reflect favorably on the intelligence of the nations interested; * * *%,
Canada was quite ready to do her share and be a party to any arrangement that will
protect seal life and preserve all the seals but males.’’ [Toronto Globe, Feb. 22,
1908. |
With this declaration in open session of the Canadian senate, quoted above, we
have the highest official authority—the secretary of state of the Dominion of Canada—
publicly denying all blame for this continuation of the loot and ruin of the fur-seal
herd of Alaska. We have him officially declaring that the Canadian Government
has been and is ready and willing to unite upon that plan of mutual concession and
joint control which John Hay and myself prepared in 1905, with this aid of the sena-
tonal committee (Gov. Dillingham, chairman) and Sir Mortimer Durand, as above
cited.
Why should th's treaty plan be longer delayed? Why should that infamous work
of the land and sea butchers of our fur-seal herd go thus unchecked; and that, too,
when the Canadian government asks us to unite with it on a proper plan to suppress 1t?
No quibbling or nonsense about the necessity of “‘seeing’’ or sounding Japan or
Russia jist, will bear the light of honest discussion. Those Governments have both been
ready at any hour, since 1897, to unite with us on any plan to suppress pelagic fur sealing,
which we could FIRS T get Canada to assent to.
We have to deal only with Canada in this business, seriously. Why is it not done,
and why not done now?
Henry W. E.tiort,
No. 17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio.
Marcu 16, 1908.
The CHarrMAN. I want to ask Mr. Elliott a question that I forgot
to ask him before. I asked Mr. Clark whether he ever saw the
Carlisle rules that were on the records of the Pribilof Islands, and
he said no. Have you any testimony to show that he had such
knowledge ?
Mr. Exuiorr. I have; I have the proof that he had such knowledge.
The CHAIRMAN. You may submit it.
Mr. Evriorr. The evidence is given by himself in an official report
to the Secretary of the Treasury, February 24, 1898.
The CHarrMAN. Explain it to the committee.
Mr. Exxiorr. On Friday, February 20, 1914, Mr. George A. Clark
swore that he had no knowledge of the Carlisle rules, posted January
17, 1897, in the official journal of the Government agents on St. Paul
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 827
Island, until he saw the hearing of this committee of January 17,
1914. On February 20, of this year, Mr. Clark testified as follows:
The CuarrMANn. Did you know that Carlisle had issued regulations that were in
force on the island in 1896 prohibiting the killing of yearling seals?
Mr. CrarK. No; I was not aware in 1896 or 1897 of that fact.
The CHarrMAN. Do you not know now about those regulations on the islands?
Mr. CrarK. I know it from the last hearing only.
Mr. McGurre. That was his last testimony.
Mr. Exiiotr. Yes; Friday, February 20, 1914. That George A.
Clark was deliberately telling an untruth to deceive the committee
is self-confessed by him in his own official report to the Secretary
of the Treasury dated February 24, 1898, pages 257 to 292, part,,2
Fur Seal Investigation, 1898.
Here is the record of a search made into every official entry that
he could find touching certain movements of the seals in each and
every journal kept by the United States agents in charge of the seal
islands from 1872 to the close of the record of 1896, up to the date of
July 13, 1896.
This exhibit of this examination of every page in these official logs,
or journals, kept on the seal islands from 1872 to the end of the
season of 1896, or the year when he first visited the islands, de-
clares the fact that on page 292, part 2, in Seal Investigations, he has
made an examination of Chief Special J. B. Crowley’s log for 1896
and ae made daily extracts from its pages between “April 13” and
“July 13.”
The ‘Carlisle regulations” of May 14, 1896, are beautifully en-
grossed in this log aforesaid, on pages 14, 15, 16, under date of entry,
“June 17.” Therefore, Mr. Clark in his progress of examination of
the pages of this official log day by day, up to July 13, could not have
failed to have seen, immediately after his citation of events on ‘June
14,” as noted by him here, on page 292, this extended and handsome
entry of the Carlisle regulations under date of June 17 and imme-
diately following. That he carefully turned the pages from ‘June
14” over to ‘June 23,” and then again to “July 13,” is fully con-
fessed to the committee by himself in this official record of his own
making and as above described. That is all I wish to say upon that
subject.
The CuarrMan. I believe that concludes the hearing, then.
Mr. McGurre. Mr. Lembkey wishes to make a brief statement.
Mr. Lempxey. IJ did have a desire at the time to answer certain
statements which Mr. Elhott had brought forth in his testimony
before the committee, but as I look back upon it now I feel that
perhaps it might be just as well to let it go and not comment on it
at all, so I do not care to make any further statement.
The CHarrMan. I desire to state to the committee that there may
be a few papers yet that may be submitted in the matter of certificates
and public records, and so forth, and 1 would like to have a little
time to gather them together.
Mr. McGuire. For this record ?
The CHatrrMan. Yes; things that probably ought to be in. I am
not sure there will be anything. I think there is a certificate here
as to who was the owner of the James Hamilton Lewis, in 1892.
Mr. StepHens. When will we meet again, Mr. Chairman.
The CuarrmMan. We will adjourn to meet at 10.30 Thursday
morning next.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
HovusrE oF REPRESENTATIVES,
Thursday, April 2, 1914.
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman)
presiding.
The CHarrMANn. There is a quorum present, and we will proceed. I
have called the committee together for the purpose of considering the
report to be made upon the fur-seal investigation, and will read the
same to the committee:
[House Report No. —, Sixty-third Congress, second session.]
THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
Apri —.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Rothermel, from the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com-
merce, submitted the following report:
The Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, proceeding under
its general powers to inquire into the leasing of sealing privileges on the Pribilof
Islands of Alaska, the conduct of the lessees on the said seal islands, the management
by the officials of the Government in charge of the fur-seal herd after the expiration
of said leases, beg leave to report as follows:
Specific charges having been filed with the committee August 31, 1913, alleging
that the agents of the Government had conspired with the lessees of the seal islands
to take seals in violation of law and the provisions of their contract; and also that the
said lessee company had secured the lease from the Government by fraud and perjury,
the committee determined to investigate these questions and report its findings of
fact to the House. Extended hearings were had, beginning October 13, 1913, and
ended March 13, 1914.
The committee, after due and careful deliberation, finds the following facts:
I. That when the United States took possession of the fur-seal herd, in 1867-68, by
virtue of the treaty of cession from Russia, and leased it to the Alaska Commercial Co.,
a corporation, for 20 years from May 1, 1870, the herd consisted of about 4,700,000
seals. (See pp. 56-57, hearing No.1.) During the period of this lease, 1870-1890, the
lessees took 1,856,224 seals, deriving therefrom a net profit of $18,753,911.20, while the
net profit of the Government therefrom was but $5,264,230.08. (See hearing No. 1,
. 176-178.
ra eechat F March 12, 1890, a second lease was entered into with another corpora-
tion, known as the North American Commercial Co., of San Francisco, for a period
of 20 years. That when this lease was executed, a survey of the herd made in July
of that year, disclosed the fact that there were about 1,000,000 seals on the islands.
That this reduction of the heard was due to the combined effect of killing 100,000
seals annually on land, since 1870, and the energetic prosecution of pelagic sealing first
begun in 1883-84 and actively prosecuted since 1888. (See pp. 183-184, hearing No. 1.)
That the heard had been depleted to such an extent in 1884, that the Alaska Com-
mercial Co. had difficulty in securing their average annual quota. In spite of this
fact, however, the said company continued to take an annual average of about 100,000
seals, until their lease expired in 1890. On the expiration of this lease, the heard
had been depleted to such an extent that the new lessee, the North American Com-
829
830 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
mercial Co., had great difficulty in obtaining their first quota in June and July, 1890,
and commenced to kill female seals and yearlings, which is now, and was then pro-
hibited by law, and by the regulations of the department, dated May 14, 1896. This
unlawful killing of seals was reported July 31 and September 7, 1890, to Hon. William
Windom, the Secretary of the Treasury, who died January 29, 1891, and to his suc-
cessor, Hon. Charles Foster, who took no steps olficially to prevent a recurrence of
such loss to the Government; but, on the contrary, immediately removed the agent
who reported it,and assigned him to another position in the service. (See pp. 304-—
314, hearing No. 1.)
~That the conduct of the lessees, the North American Commercial Co., through its
officers and agents, coupled with the work of and the interest they had in pelagic
hunting, so reduced the seal herd of about a million seals that in August, 1910, the
number of seals on the islands did not, as officially reported, exceed 133,000. That
the lessees had killed in 20 years 343,356 seals, from which they derived a net profit
of approximately $5,000,000 and by reason of which the Government, after paying
the expenses incident to the management of the fur-seal herd during said period,
derived no profit, but, on the contrary, suffered a cash loss of more than $1,350,000.
That the record of 40 years of leasing of the seal islands of Alaska (1870-1910) dis-
closes the fact that the Government has suffered a property loss of not less than
$80,000,000, caused by the almost complete commercial ruin of the said seal herd,
while the net revenue received by the Government under both leases amounted to
but $3,914,000, approximately. (See pp. 176-178, hearing No. 1.)
III. Your committee finds that the second lease which the Government entered
into—namely, with the North American Commercial Co.—was obtained by fraud, in
part having consisted in the filing of a false affidavit on the part of Isaac Liebes, presi-
dent of said company. Testimony discloses the fact that the said Liebes, as president
of said company, did, on March 12, 1890, declare under oath in the form of a written
affidavit, which was placed on file in the Treasury Department with the papers in
the case, to the effect that neither he nor any of his associate lessees were engaged
in the business of pelagic sealing or in any violation of law, when in truth and in fact
he, the said Isaac Liebes, was at the very time of the filing of said affidavit in full
knowledge of the fact that his associate lessee, Herman Liebes, was the owner of the
schooner James Hamilton Lewis, and that she had been outfitted by him, illegally
cleared January 10, 1890, for hunting fur seals at sea and for the very purpose of com-
mitting depredations on the high seas and in American waters and on the seal islands
of Alaska during the summer of 1890. That on September 17, 1890, he, the said Isaac
Liebes, president, as aforesaid, became part owner of said vessel James Hamilton
Lewis. That the said Herman and Isaac Liebes, officers and stockholders of the said
North American Commercial Co. and as owners of the said James Hamilton Lewis,
corresponded, combined, confederated with one Alexander McLean, known as a
notorious British pirate, for the purpose of committing, and in fact did commit, dep-
redations on the high seas in American waters, and on the Pribilof Islands, by way
of unlawfully killing fur seals belonging to the Government of the United States.
(See pp. 224, 225, 285, 290, 294, 295, hearing No. 1.)
Your committee is of the opinion that the conduct of the officers of the North Amer-
ican Commercial Co. during 1890, 1891, and subsequent thereto, was such that the
officials of the Government should have promptly revoked the lease, and prevented
this great loss of property. In this connection it may be stated that the following is a
clause which appears in the lease:
“The Secretary of the Treasury reserves the right to terminate this lease and all
rights of the North American Commercial Co. under the same at any time on full and
satisfactory proof that the said company has violated any of the provisions and agree-
ments of this lease, or any of the laws of the United States, or any Treasury regulation
respecting the taking of fur seals or concerning the islands of St. George and St. Paul
or the inhabitants thereof.’’
That the said North American Commercial Co. gave a bond, dated March 12, 1890,
in the sum of $500,000, conditioned for the faithful observance of all laws and regula-
tions of the Treasury Department, said bond being signed by I. Liebes, president; H.
B. Parsons, assistant secretary; and Darius O. Mills, attorney in fact, and Stephen
B. Elkins, as sureties, and approved by William Windom, Secretary of the Treasury,
and which said bond is on file in the department, as part of the record in the case.
IV. Your committee further finds that, in spite of the ruinous record made during
the last 20 years, by the North American Commercial Co. under the supervision
of the Government agents of the seal islands of Alaska, H. H. Taylor, the president
of said company, C. H. Townsend, a member of advisory board on fur-seal service,
Department of Commerce and Labor, and George M. Bowers, Commissioner of the
Bureau of Fisheries, did recommend to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, the
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 83]
Hon. Charles Nagel, that he enter into another lease of the said islands, for 20
years. The testimony discloses the fact that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor
had intended to enter into another contract to re-lease the islands to the highest and
best bidder. Strenuous objections to any leasing of the islands, however, were made
by public-spirited citizens, and this prevented the renewal of the lease. (See state-
ment of Charlies Nagel, dated Mar. 19, 1914, and review of said, appendix to hearing
No. 3.) :
VY. That since the lessees were prevented from further killing by the expiration of
their lease and by the passage of the act of Congress, approved April 21, 1910, which
act prohibited the re-leasing of the islands for the purpose of killing seals, the Secre
tary of Commerce and Labor was placed in full control of affairs on the said islands.
Your committee, after due and careful deliberation, finds that the lessee company
took 128,000 yearling seals in violation of law during the term of their lease. That
this was done in collusion with the agents of the Government on the islands. That
on May 14, 1896, the Hon. John G. Carlisle, Secretary of the Treasury, issued
regulations which prohibited the killing of yearling seals and seals whose skins
weighed less than 6 pounds. That, in spite of this regulation, the lessee company, in
collusion with the Government agents on the islands, took about 8,000 seals in viola-
tion thereof, during the season of its prohibition, i. e., June and July, 1896. (See
pp. 207-208, hearing No. 1.)
That there were no other regulations issued until May 1, 1904, when .the Carlisle
regulations were, in effect, reissued, as the ‘‘Hitchcock rules,’’ whereby the killing
of any male seals under 2 years of age was prohibited, on the well established fact that
the sex between the male and the female yearling seals can not be told apart, as they
haul out upon the island without a physical examination.
That no further regulations were issued until May 9, 1906. No changes were made
then as to the ages or the prohibition of killing yearling seals, but a change in the
minimum weight of skin to be taken from ‘‘6 pounds” in the Carlisle, and from ‘‘54
pounds” in the Hitchcock regulations, to ‘‘5 pounds” was made. It is quite ap-
parent to the committee that the object of both the Carlisle and Hitchcock regulations
as to the weight of skins was to prevent the killing of young or yearling seals. These
rules were made with the assumption that those skin weights would be properly made
when the pelts were taken from the bodies of the seals.
VI. The committee further finds that in 1896, and thereafter, the leasing company,
in conjunction and connivance with the Government agents on the islands, killed
yearling seals, and added sufficient blubber in skinning the animals so as to bring
the skin weights within the regulation. By lowering the weight of the skins it made
the fraud and deception easier, because it took less blubber on the small skins to bring
them within the regulations. In this connection it may be well to note that Mr.
Frank H. Hitchcock, who, as chief clerk of the Department of Commerce and Labor,
appeared before the Ways and Means Committee on March 9, 1904, and said that he
had been sent to represent the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and to make the
following proposal to the committee. On page 35, hearings on fur seals, Ways and
Means Committee, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, on House joint resolution
124, appears the following:
“Mr. Hirencocr. 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. Killing will thus be restricted to seals between 2 and 4 years old.
“Mr. Wixitams of Mississippi. You propose to forbid the killing of seals under
2 years old?
““Mr. Hircuvock. Yes.
“Mr. WiiitAms. 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. Hircucocx. You are quite right; that’s the point. The great objection to
the killing of these small seals, and, I take it, the only objection, is the difficulty from
distinguishing 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 sent that notice of this reception to the House
Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24,
1911. (See p. 987, Appendix A, H. Doc. 93, 62d Cong., 1st sess.)
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 Com-
mittee not to allow any seals killed on the Pribilof Islands ‘‘under 2 years of age,”’
and this pledge was also given to the Senate subcommittee in charge of Alaskan affairs.
(Gov. Dillingham, chairman, on Mar. 8, 1904.) (See p. 235, hearing No. 1, Jan. 17,
1914, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce.)
832 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
It is conceded on all sides that the sex in young seals can not be told apart, without —
physical examination, and that they are born equal in number. (See p. 182, hearing
ING pel
In the iudgment of the committee, this raises a strong presumption that half of the
yearlings so taken were females, which is made a crime under the statute.
This method of taking seals continued until the end of the killing season of 1909, the
termination of the lease. After that the business was conducted by the Government
- under the direction of Hon. Charles Nagel, then Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
VII. The committee finds that the taking of seals on the Pribilof Islands, under
the direction of former Secretary Charles Nagel, from 1910 to 1912, inclusive, was
conducted in the same manner, and by the same officials, as in the latter years of the
leasing company. Before the said Charles Nagel had full authority under law to take
seals on the islands and during the last year of the lease he was repeatedly notified of
the unlawful killing and depredations committed by the sealing company, and the
Government agents on the Pribilof Islands, specifically detailed to him, as done
during the years of 1906, 1907, and 1908; he was warned April 26, 1909, that they
would be guilty again, under his direction of the same conduct. This warning was
disregarded; the same leasing parties were on the islands i in 1909, and took, in Viola-
tion of law and regulation, 7 230 ‘small pups” and ‘‘extra small pups,’ ’ which were
yearlings, and exclusively the property of the Government.
The committee further finds that the said Charles Nagel, on May 7, 1909, appointed
George A. Clark as a special expert assistant to visit the islands, examine ‘conditions,
and make a report to the department, which he did September 30, 1909.. In said
report the special assistant aforesaid states that yearlings are taken ‘and “no seal is
too small to be killed,’’ to wit:
‘“‘Tt is on the killing field, however, that the great need of a guiding and controlling
hand is shown. In1896-97 the Government agents ordered thedrives. This season
they have been entirely in the hands of the lessees. The young males set aside for
breeding purposes having been marked, the lessees have been free to take what they
could get, and this resulted in their taking practically all of the bachelors appearing
on the hauling grounds,
“% * * With a fixed legal quota, and a limited time in which to secure it from a
failing herd, there naturally results close, severe driving. In the eagerness to see that
no possible bachelor escapes, the edges of the rookies are encroached upon and cows
included in the drives. Fifty of them appeared in drives toward the close of this
season. A drive that can not be made without including cows should be omitted.
A drive which appears on the killing field with 15 to 20 cows in it should be released
rather than incur the danger of clubbing any such cow by mistake. There should be
some one in charge of the herd with power and discretion to do this. With a limited
killing season, however, this would be unfair to the lessees. There should also be
power and discretion to waive the limit and extend the time of killing if necessary.
“There has been on the killing grounds since 1900 a constant struggle on the part of
the leasing company in the closing years of its concession to get every possible skin
from the declining herd. Its work has been aided by a high arbitrary legal quota and
by a lowered minimum weight of skin, enabling it to cradually anticipate the quotas
of succeeding years by killing younger animals. As a result there has occurred in
these years probably the closest killing to which the herd has ever been subjected.
Aside from the diminished supply of male life on the breeding grounds in 1904, this
is shown in the fact that though the herd has declined two-thirds in size, the quota has
never fallen more than one-third in size as compared with that of 1897.
* * * * * * *
‘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.
* * * * * * *
** A killing wasmadeat Halfway Pointasusualonthereturntrip. It yielded 32skins.
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 skinsof8and 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. * * *’ (See hearing No. 1, pp. 104-105, 187-188, H.
Com. on Exps., Dept. of Commerce.)
The committee further finds that the said Charles Nagel, disregarding the Clark
report, and substituting another report, by printing it, November, 1909, which denied
Mr. Clark’s findings of fact, and all former notices in writing, of the illegal killing of
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 833
seals on the islands by the lessees, received on May 9, 1910, from Henry W. Elliott
the following letter, to wit:
Laxewoop, Ouio, 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 imiperatively 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 iaw
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.
Il. This illegal and improper killing has been ordered by the lessees, and falsely
certified into your department as the taking of male seals according to law and the
rules of your department.
Ill. The full and complete proof of this illegal 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 by Items I and II.
Very truly, yours,
Henry W. ELLiort.
The said Charles Nagel ignored this letter, which is part of the record of the depart-
ment, and was again notified to the same effect on May 24, 1910, by another letter from
the said Henry W. Elliott, which is also part of the record of the department.
After these warnings of the guilty conduct of the lessees in conjunction with the
Government agents on the islands, during the year 1909, the said Charles Nagel, in
1910, under authority of the Government, sent to the islands the same Government
officials who again killed young or yearling seals in violation of law, in the same manner
as was done in conjunction with the sealing company prior therein 1909. In that year
June and July, 1910, they killed 7,733 yearlings. (See pp. 642-645, hearing No. 2;
pp. 702-709, hearing No. 3.)
In the judgment of the commitee half of that number were females.
In 1911, after said Charles Nagel was fully aware that the Committee on Expendi-
tures in the Department of Commerce was investigating the conduct of the lessees and
Government agents and the killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands, he again sent the
same Government agents to the Pribilof Islands. They killed 6,241 yearlings in
vidation of law and regulation in 1911. This occurred during the months of June and
y, 1911.
In 1912, the said Charles Nagel sent the same guilty Government agents again to the
islands, and 1,178 yearlings were killed out of the small total taken of 3,773 seals, in
violation of law and regulation.
VIII. Your committee finds that regulation as to the weight of skins is futile, for
the reason that the skin of a yearling can be taken and sufficient blubber may be added
by skinning, to make it weigh as much as, and more than that of a 2-year-old pelt,
which is properly skinned. The committee further finds that the records made by the
agents of the Government in’the Bureau of Fisheries during the lease of the sealing
company, and subsequent thereto, were made by skin weight, and not by skin measure-
ment, as should have been done.
IX. Your committee finds that Isaac Liebes and the late Herman Liebes were en-
gaged in pelagic sealing at the time that the lease was obtained from the Government;
that the late Darius O. Mills, of New York, was a member of the leasing company, as
was the late Stephen B. Elkins, Senator from West Virginia; that Lloyd Tevis and
Herman and Isaac Liebes were also incorporators and shareholders of the leasing
company known as the ‘‘North American Commercial Co.,’’ of San Francisco and New
York. (See pp. 224, 225, 285, 290, hearing No. 1.) : i
The evidence is full and complete that said lessees had full knowledge of this guilty
killing of yearling and female seals aforesaid; and, did annually divide up and par-
ticipate in the profits of said illegal killing of seals since 1891, to the end of their lease,
May 1, 1910. (See pp. 305, 307, 313-316, hearing No. 1, and p. 707, hearing No. 3.)
Your committee finds in further evidence the proof that the Russian sealing records
of 1800-1834, have been deliberately falsified by the report of Dr. David Starr Jordan,
on Fur-Seal Investigations, Parts 1-4, 1898, being a report made to the Secretary of the
Treasury, February 24, 1898.
53490—14——53
834 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA,
The significance and design of this falsification of the Russian records of land killing
from 1800 to 1834, whereby the herd on the Pribilof Islands was nearly reduced to
complete extinction, and to its utter commercial ruin to the latter date, is apparent
and self-confessed to the committee by Dr. Jordan’s associate and secretary, George
A. Clark, who, on February 23, 1914, page 551, hearing No. 2, testified as follows:
“Mr. CLark. 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.”’
The testimony and documents produced to the committee show beyond dispute
or a shadow of doubt, that Dr. Jordan used a false translation of that Russian record of
the killing which enabled him to untruthfully assert that ‘‘the Russians killed males
and females alike” on the rookeries of the Pribilof Islands, from 1800 to 1834; thus de-
stroying the herd, and compelling that 10 years’ close time which was ordered for the
herd, by the R. A. Co., from 1834 to 1844; and before commercial killing was again
resumed. (See pp. 183-186, hearing No. 1, and pp. 671-678, hearing No. 3.)
That Dr. David Starr Jordan should have made an elaborate report to the Secretary
of the Treasury in 1898, wholly based upon a deliberate and studied falsification of the
Russian sealing records of 1800-1834, is proven by the official records of the Proceedings
of the Tribunal of Arbitration (Vols. VII, pp. 13-14, 152-153; VIII, pp. 305-323), and
which proof is fully carried in the testimony given on pages 671-678, hearing No. 3.
That Dr. Jordan and his associates, who prepared this false based report, aforesaid,
did so to shield and conceal the truth as to the ruinous work of the land killing by the
lessees on the Pribilof Islands is beyond question, since the truth in the premises,
had it been told by Jordan in 1896 and 1898, would have compelled the immediate
removal of the lessees from the islands, and would have led to a betterment of the
conditions involved, at once.
Your committee, taking due note of all the testimony given, and carefully review-
ing the same, together with that relating to the certified records given it by the United
States Bureau of Fisheries, of the London sales of fur-seal skins, which were secured
as ‘‘small pups” and ‘‘extra small pups” illegally on the Pribilof Islands by the
lessees thereof, in violation of the law and regulations of the Government, find that
said lessees have taken since 1896 at least 128,000 such yearling fur-seal skins as were
distinctly prohibited and denied to them by law and regulations, said illegal and
ruinous killing being annually done by them from 1896 to the end of their lease,
May 1, 1910. (See hearing No. 1, 213-280, 1914.)
The committee therefore recommends:
(1) That the Attorney General be requested to take such steps as may be necessary
to collect the bond of $500,000 from the said North American Commercial Co. and
the sureties thereon.
(2) That the Attorney General be requested to institute civil proceedings against
Isaac Liebes and his associate lessees, and their legal representatives, to recover such
damages as he and his confederates did to the seal herd of Alaska from 1890 to 1910,
and to proceed against such other persons who may be or who are-also implicated.
(3) That with a view to carrying these recommendations into effect, the Clerk of
the House be directed to forward to the Attorney General a certified copy of this report,
together with a complete set of the official hearings held before and by this committee
on this subject, with the request that the Attorney General proceed in the case as the
law and evidence direct for the good of the public interests concerned.
Mr. SterHens. I move that the statement of former Secretary
Nagel, as submitted to the committee, be printed as a part of the
hearings.
(The motion was agreed to.)
I make the same motion with reference to Mr. Elhott’s answer to
Mr. Nagel’s statement.
(The motion was agreed to.)
Mr. McGuire. I move that Mr. Nagel be accorded the privilege o
making an additional statement, if he so desires.
(The motion was disagreed to.)
Mr. STEPHENS. I move that the report be adopted as read.
(The motion was agreed to.)
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 835
Mr. McGuire. The minority gives notice that a minority report
will be filed.
Mr. Watkins. I move that the chairman arrange with the Com-
mittee on Accounts for the payment of expenses incurred by the com-
mittee in making the fur-seal investigation of 1913-14, upon which
the report of the committee is based.
(The motion was agreed to.)
(The committee thereupon proceeded to the consideration of execu-
tive business. )
STATEMENT OF CHARLES NAGEL.
Maroxw 19, 1914.
Hon. Joun H. RoTHERMEL,
Chairman Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce.
Sir: In as much as it is impossible for me to leave here at this time, and your com-
mittee can not await my arrival in Washington on the 2d of April, I have decided to
submit a brief statement now.
VOLUME AND NATURE OF WORK TO BE DIRECTED.
While I was Secretary of Commerce and Labor there were never less than 12 bureaus
in the department. Of these the Bureau of Fisheries was by no means the most im-
portant. Furthermore, the essentially scientific character of its work furnished an
additional reason why a Secretary with only one assistant could not give more than
that general supervision which the law contemplates. Even in this particular bureau,
the seal herds constitued lonly a relatively important factor when compared with sal-
mon, lobsters, and other fish intersets at sea and in the inland hatcheries and stations.
Necessarily, and with a confidence which [ still entertain, I looked to the representa-
tives of the bureau for advice in the performance of all matters of detail. My per-
sonal attention was devoted to a few questions of more fundamental importance, with
respect to which I would be expected to counsel with other representatives of the
executive and legislative departments.
THE DEPARTMENT’S ATTITUDE TO THE LEASING SYSTEM.
The first question to which I gave attention was whether or not the leasing system
should be continued at all. Both sealing leases—the one of 1870 and the one of 1890—
were made by the Treasury Department. The control of seal interests was not trans-
ferred to the Bureau of Fisheries until December, 1908.
When I went into office, in March, 1909, the lease of the North American Co. had
2 little over a year to run, and the last killing under its terms was had on the Pribilof
Islands, in Bering Sea, within the first five months after I entered office. The Gov-
ernment’s agents were in charge at the islands; rules which had stood for years were
in force; material changes were out of question; and, barring the earnest warning
that every precaution be observed for the protection of the herds under the law and
the rules, the killing was necessarily had without substantial change. The matter
to which I gave particular attention was the provision of the law which required
that in May of the following year a new lease be entered into under conditions sub-
stantially prescribed in the statute. This provision was mandatory, unless in the
meantime the conclusion was reached by Congress to change the Government’s
policy. Commissioner Bowers of the bureau brought this matter to my attention in
ample time in 1909 and suggested that the leasing system be discontinued and that the
Government take over the management of the herds. This course was definitely
recommended in November, 1909, by both the advisory board and the fur-seal board.
This suggestion had been advanced and dismissed during an earlier administration.
After conferences with representatives of the bureau, the Secretary of State, the Presi-
dent, Senator Dixon, chairman of the Senate Committee on Conservation, and many
others, the department decided to recommend its adoption. The bill providing for
this change was prepared by my direction by the solicitor of the department and was,
with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce and Labor,
sent to Congress by the President with a special message. As will appear from the
reports of congressional hearings, representatives of the bureau appeared with me
836 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
before the Senate and the House committees to explain the importance of the measure
and to urge its passage. It passed both Houses and was signed by the President.
In the meantime, in order that we might be prepared whatever the event (no one
being in a position to say that a new law would be enacted), we had, of course, made
every preparation under the mandatory terms of the old statute and kept all persons
who inquired advised of the situation from time to time.
In the face of these uncontroverted facts which may be gathered from the official
correspondence of the department with the President, Senator Dixon, and others, it
is hardly necessary to characterize any statement to the effect that the Bureau of
Fisheries or I resisted this change or scught to continue the leasing system. is
THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS FOR A TREATY TO SUPPRESS PELAGIC SEALING.
The second and perhaps more important subject to which I devoted myself was
the suppression of pelagic sealing by treaty. With respect to this question I heard
only one opinicn. In fact, at that time many differences upon minor matters turned
upon the probable effect which this or that decision might have upon this controlling
issue. For illustration, the contention which now monopolizes attention, that it
would be wiser to discontinue the killing of even a certain percentage of male seals,
was at that time made, chiefly because of the supposed beneficial effect of such an
announcement upon the prespects for a treaty. Repeatedly during the year 1909
Mr. Bowers, of the Bureau of Fisheries, discussed with me the urgent need for such a
treaty. The slaughter of female seals by pelagic sealers had become so ruinous that
high authority had suggested the annihilation of the entire herd as the only consistent
termination to so destructive a practice. In the fall of 1909 I addressed the State
Department, making an earnest appeal to renew the effort. The story is an old one.
The State Department advised me that negotiations for a convention were underway;
and they were finally successful. The four countries interested—Great Britain,
Russia, Japan, and the United States—appointed delegates to the convention held in
Washington in 1911, I being one of the delegates for this country. After a sessicn of
many weeks, which at times threatened to adjourn without agreement, the treaty was
adopted, and it is now in force.
It serves no purpose now to dispute over the questions how and by whom this or
that provision of the treaty was prepared. Indeed, it would not be proper to state
more than the official protocol contains. Such discussion may be safely left to those
whose personal rancor has blinded them to the cause to be served. Those who have
kept that cause in mind are glad to forget past differences of opinion, to rejoice in
present success.
To repeat, in 1911 the leasing system and pelagic sealing had been abolished, both
with the earnest and constant cooperation of the department and the representatives
of the Fisheries Bureau. There then remained only one question to decide: Should
all killing be suspended, or should a given percentage of male seals be taken during
the season of 1912?
PELAGIC SEALING HAVING BEEN ABOLISHED, WHICH POLICY WOULD BEST CONSERVE
THE SEAL HERDS?
This presented a subordinate question about which my opinion would be of little
or no value, and which therefore had to be determined by those who were by law
charged with the consideration of such problems. The system of distinct bureaus in
one and the same department contemplates that particular work shall be intrusted
to men who are particularly qualified for that work. The Bureau of Fisheries would,
for illustration, not be consulted about a machine to test the strength of steel, or about
a census of the manufactures of this country, or about an immigration case at Ellis
Island. But it would be required to decide whether or not it is safe and wise to killa
certain percentage of male seals, and if so, in what season, in what proportion, and
at what ages? And inasmuch as it is impracticable to classify seals according to age
by grouping or segregation from one season to another, it would be for the bureau to
decide how the question of age can be determined with practical security. I make
this detailed explanation because I wish to save a somewhat obvious rule of adminis-
tration from the confusion which disproportionate attention to past controversies and
revamped historical data has cast upon it. I knew little more about the propriety
or time of killing seal than did the Chiefs of the Bureaus of Navigation or Corporations.
If my past experience had qualified me to understand the detail work of any bureau,
the Bureau of Fisheries certainly was not the one. In other words, I relied upon that
advice and assistance which the law contemplates when it gives a Secretary super-
visory control of his department.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 837
The chief of the Bureau of Fisheries was himself an administrator rather than a
trained expert. But his assistant and other members of his staff were qualified ex-
perts. I looked to such men as Drs. Smith and Everman of the bureau, both of whom
were in the service when I leit the department. Dr. Smith has since then been
promoted to the position of chief of Bureau of Fisheries, by President Wilson, and is,
in view of his past advice to me, to be congratulated upon having escaped the bane-
ful consequences of this investigation, and upon having been confirmed by the Senate.
In addition, there were upon the seal board such other experienced men as M. C.
Marsh, A. B. Alexander, Walter L. Lembkey, and James Judge, who were consulted.
There were still other advisers to whom I was bound to defer. During the Adminis-
tration of President Roosevelt, my predecessor, Secretary Strauss, had appointed an
advisory board of the following: Dr. David Starr Jordan, Dr. Leonhard Stejneger,
Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Dr. Charles H. Townsend, Hon. Edward
W. Sims, and Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock. They were selected to pass upon the ques-
tion, among others, whether we should continue to kill a certain percentage of male
seals. I had their report before me, recommending precisely what was afterwards
done. From time to time members of these boards were further consulted, so that I
had the right to feel that I was acting upon the advice of the most experienced men in
our country. It has been insinuated that the department failed to consult two men—
Dr. Merriam and Postmaster General Hitchcock. I do not recall about the first,
although his testimony at the hearing disposes of all doubt about his position. The
second was present at Cabinet meetings and was advised of the course that was adopted
by the department.
‘It is asserted that the department did not heed the warnings of Henry Elliott and
Dr. Hornaday. That is true. . Both started with instructions as to what the depart-
ment must do, and coupled them with accusations against reputable men, which
could not be entertained without proof, and which I do not now entertain in the
face of your committee’s investigation. I concluded early, and I now think wisely,
that to satisfy the opposition I would have to surrender the control of my office.
This I refused; and I do not now regret to share the consequences with the men
who have been inadvisedly attacked. If one man, however innocent, had been
singled out in the hope that the truth would never over take a lie well. started, he
might have been humiliated. But conditions are not yet ripe to have the reputa-
tions of such men as compose the boards above referred to all destroyed at one blow.
Practically all these men to-day occupy positions of public responsibility in spheres
closely related to the question then under consideration. Their work is under con-
stant observation. They continue to command the respect of their superiors in
office and their scientific colleagues out of office, as resolutions of associations and
editorial comment in publications and correspondence will abundantly testify.
EFFORT IN THE PAST TO AVOID PERSONAL CONTROVERSY.
I regret to have even referred to the personal phases of your investigation. You
will have to admit that I have done so only in so far as the course of the inquiry
makes this necessary. When during the regular hearing between the 3lst day of
May, 1911, and the 3lst day of July, 1912, 5 rou left it optional with me to appear, you
will remember that I deemed this unnecessary, because I could not contribute any-
thing to the merits of your inquiry, and most of those who could make such contri-
butions and upon whose judgment I would in any event have to rely had appeared
and testified.
Your own report made January 31, 1913, confirmed me in the correctness of my
position. The slight criticism which the majority of your committee made, was in
the main directed at details of management with respect to which I depended neces-
sarily upon subordinates, who had testified from their personal knowledge, and who,
in my opinion and that of the minority of the committee, were fully sustained by the
records and the undoubted facts.
The hearing has now been reopened. Little or nothing new has been presented,
although unusual publicity has attended your special agent’ 8 last report. For this
reason I have referred to some of the personal phases contained in it. For the same
reason I shall now take the time to comment upon a few of the more flagrant misrepre-
sentations which followed the giving out of this report.
The lack of order or discernible purpose in your Inquiries is such that I may not have
caught all the accusations that are intended for my attention. As they come to me I
shall be prepared to take them up; but shall now content myself with the mention of
a few that have enjoyed peculiar distinction.
838 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTIC CHARGES.
(a) It is asserted, for illustration, that a report made by George A. Clark in 1909 was
suppressed. It was transmitted to your committee in 1911, in compliance with a gen-
eral demand for all documents. You had it before you when you signed your com-
mittee’s report in 1913. I doubt whether I personally ever read thisreport. The read-
ing of all similar documents in all the bureaus is out of question. I do know, however,
that George A. Clark was one of the men upon whose active advice J depended in
approving rules and conduct. Indeed, the department had the benefit of his exper-
ience and observations, and he comes in for particular criticism for having advised me
to do what was done. Even this report did not, in Mr. Clark’s mind, bear the inter-
pretation which is now placed upon it; nor is it rationally capable of such interpreta-
tion. Furthermore, Dr. H. M. Smith, of the Bureau of Fisheries (now its chief) did
bring this report to my attention on August 31, 1909; and that report was soon after
transmitted to the State Department for its use in connection with the negotiations
for a treaty. If, on the other hand, it is meant that the Clark report was suppressed
because it was not printed, I must call attention to the fact that any aftempt by the
department to print all similar reports would have resulted in an early exhaustion
of its annual appropriation; and in that event a committee on expenditures in the
Department of Commerce and Labor might have been given very legitimate occupa-
tion. For illustration, 1t has not been charged that this same Mr. Clark’s report for
1913 was suppressed because Secretary Redfield did not order it printed.
(b) Reference has also been made to a Treasury rule of 1896, restricting the taking
of sealskins to 6 pounds, which rule your special agent claims to have discovered in
the agent’s books on the seal islands. This is also claimed to have been suppressed by
the Bureau of Fisheries. I confess I do not recall it—probably never heard of it
before. It is admitted that in 1904 an official in the department, whose integrity has
not yet been assailed, prepared new rules in ignorance of. the one-time existence of
this same newly discovered one. Obviously, if made at all, this rule was made long
before the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor. In the year 1909,
when I came into office, this rule had been superseded several times, and probably
had never been transmitted to my department. It now constitutes one of those
historic details for the publication of which time and money may be expended, but
which otherwise has neither value nor interest.
The effort to first charge the lessees with misconduct during a period of 20 years,
and then to saddle my administration with the responsibility, because the last year of
the lease covered the first year of my administration, is hardly deserving of attention.
The last killing under the lease was had within a few months after I took control. It
was the end of a system with the practical administration of which I barely had time
to come in touch, and which I earnestly helped to abolish. Ifit could now be shown
(which there is no reason to believe, and which the returns of sales refute) that the
rules of the department were, during that one season, disregarded; if, in other words,
your recommendations upon this subject to the Department of Justice in January, 1913,
should be accepted, I know of no circumstance to explain the delay or to obstruct the
doing of exact justice now.
THE CONTENTION THAT NO MALE SEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED.
But the real burden of the complaint is that the rule which allowed the killing of
any seals was unwise, and that even the rules as made were wilfully disregarded. As
I stated above, the first question presented a difference of opinion. To admit that
there was an honest difference is to dignify the personal squabble that has beset every
official who had the responsibility of making a decision. I have named the men of
authority and experience who counseled me, a disregard of whose advice by me
might well have given ground for complaint. They were supported by Mr. Henry F.
Osbern, president of the New York Zoological Society, and by every scientific pub-
lication of consequence that has come to my attention. Even Dr. W. T. Hornday
wrote Commissioner Bowers as late as March 3, 1910:
‘“‘Part of my object in writing is to once more beg of you to use your influence
against the making of a new lease, either this year or next. While I am a sincere
believer in the advisability, from a business point of view, oi following the Russian
example and making a 10-year close season, I will add that after we have made satis-
factory treaties with England and Canada, Russia, Japan, and Mexico for the sup-
pee of pelagic sealing, I would see no insuperable objection to the making of a
cilling lease, under suitable restrictions. I am quite sure, however, that the making
of such a lease now would be very detrimental to the interests of our Government
and to the work of the State Department.”’
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 839
It is perfectly clear that in the early stages of this controversy Dr. Hornaday under-
took to tell the departments what course must be adopted to procure a treaty. His
advice was not taken, but the treaty is in force. He was at that time willing even,
aiter we had obtained a treaty, to make a ‘‘killing lease.’’? This was not done, and
the Government took over the seal herds with the authority to regulate or to abate
the killing from year to year, in the light of its own experience.
Briefly stated, the considerations upon which the decision to continue the killing
of male seals was reached were these: The law left the decision absolutely with the
Secretary. There is no doubt about its terms, and Senator Dixon, in reporting the
bill, so explained to the Senate. It is doubtful whether the bill could have been
passed, if 1t had contained a provision for a closed season. We had contended for
years that pelagic sealing was the sole cause for the depletion of the herds, and that the
killing of a percentage of males was proper. A closed season would have constituted
an abandonment of our contention, and might have weakened our position. This is
made perfectly clear by the discussion on the floor of the Senate when the bill was
under consideration. Several Senators insisted that the bill really presented an
international question and should be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations,
and not to the Committee on Conservation. The opposition was removed by the
assurance that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had the discretionary power, and
could adjust the policy of his department to the needs of the State Department. This
was aiterwards done. When it had been decided, upon the advice ef the experts, that
in so far as the conservation of the herds was concerned, the killing of a certain percent-
age of males on land was wise, the further question as to the probable effect of such
action upon the chances for a treaty to suppress pelagic sealing was referred to the
State Department. This department answered that it had no objection to offer, and
added that the understanding that provisions of the proposed treaty might be drawn
in contemplation of such action was correct. Throughout, the Department of Com-
merce and Labor cooperated with the State Department, both recognizing a treaty to
suppress peiagic sealing as the controlling purpose to be attained. The treaty was
signed in 1911. It is predicated upon a division of the proceeds of male seals to be
taken, just as had been indicated. In no respect was the traditional attitude of this
Government deviated from until the law of 1912, in its provision for a five-year closed
season, virtually repudiated the representations upon which the United States dele-
gates in the convention had secured the consent of the delegates of the other countries
to the terms of the treaty as it now stands.
THE CHARGE THAT THE RULES THEMSELVES WERE NOT OBSERVED.
As to the observance of the rules, I have every confidence in the men who were in
eharge. Doubt would be removed by the manner in which they have stood attacks
upon them. If all employees in the several departments can do as well, the Govern-
ment is to be congratulated. Each year some new man was sent to the islands for the
very purpose of exercising every precaution. Throughout the department had the
benefit of the observation and advice of most experienced men. The members oi
the advisory board acted upon the invitation of the Government, and without compen-
sation save the undeserved notoriety to which they have been subjected. For a mis-
conduct of none of them would it be possible to invent a motive. When they sub-
mitted their recommendations to me, the last killing season under the lease was closed,
and thereaiter the Government alone gained or lost, whatever the policy. No one
denies that every skin taken was accounted for and sold to best advantage at public
sale. With the number of seals killed remaining about the same, the Government’s
net returns more than trebled the first year after the lease closed and the Government
took charge. If it were true (and this has been conclusively disproved) that too young
seals had been killed, the Government would still get the proceeds, and no one else.
So long as the proper reservation was made the herds could suffer no injury even then;
and the only question would have been one of discipline for the agents in charge.
The plain truth is this: The law restricted the killing of seals to those 1 year old.
With all that has been said, Congress through all the years of the leases and afterwards
made no change. The executive department, however, by rules, raised the age to 2
years, and in doing this acted upon the advice of these same men of experience. After
pelagic sealing was abolished these rules raised the age to 3 years. Throughout the
aim of the department’s rules has been to secure the conservation of the herds. For
the consumption of the natives the killing of very young seals was always permitted.
That here and there a female or a male seal under age was killed by accident is not
denied. Remembering that the seals are in a wild state, this seems unavoidable.
But the reports from the handlers of the skins in London demonstrate that such acci-
dents were very rare. The attempt to build a charge of misconduct against these
~~
840 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
reputable scientists and the staff of the bureau without reason or motive upon so
flimsy a foundation is past belief.
And upon what theory is a Secretary of a department to be made accountable for
such details of administration? I appreciate that a Secretary unavoidably gets
credit for many things which are done unheralded by men far more competent in
particular lines than he. I admit that he should be glad to take corresponding blame
for errors that may have been committed without his knowledge. I have no desire
to avoid the rules of the game. However impossible it may be for a Secretary who
presides over 14 bureaus, with anywhere from 12,000 to 25,000 employees stationed
in-all parts of the country or the territories on land and sea, to personally supervise
all the work, I would be the last to deny his responsibility for the general fitness of the
force employed. Of my own knowledge, I know nothing of seal life, of the wisdom
or unwisdom of killing this or that percentage at this or that age. I have seen the
rookeries and some skins in a warehouse. I doubt whether any other Secretary has
seen that much. Ineversawaseal killed or askin weighed, measured, orsold. When
I wrote Senator Jones the letter which has been published in three different places,
I gave the facts as they were reported to me by officials who were responsible for their
conduct to the President and to me. But I wrote more particularly to demonstrate
(and upon this feature there is no comment), that the account of sales of sealskins
which had been published to discredit the reports of the bureau had been doctored
by inserting imaginary measurements to sustain the theory of the charge. About
weights and ages and superfluous blubber on skins, I knew no more of my own knowl-
edge than I did about the details of other bureaus under my supervision, such as
the comparative value of gas buoys, or the soundings of the sea, or the precise pressure
at which a bar of steel gave way, or the correctness of a particular census enumeration,
or the precise number of fish in a hatchery. At the same time it was my good for-
tune to have associated with me essentially well informed and patriotic men; and
upon the whcle we managed to live within our appropriations and to accomplish
the work with which we were unitedly charged in all the bureaus.
CONCLUSION,
Whatever may be the extravagant statements about inconsiderable details now,
the controlling facts are that the leasing system is abolished and pelagic sealing is
suppressed. These are the more essential features, to which I gave particular per-
sonal attention. All killing is for a period abated, a new Commissioner of Fisheries
has been appointed, and with the wide experience of the past, there should be no
difficulty in evolving a policy. However, unless we are prepared to proclaim a seal
reservation on sea and land and to maintain the herds for the-entertainment of the
nations, it will become necessary at some time to decide what percentage it is safe to kill,
at what age, or of what weight or measurement. Some plan must be adopted. Either
the herds must be held permanently immune from killing for their furs, or the theory
of surplus male seals must be accepted, or males and females must be killed in equal
proportion, or the superiority of the females must be recognized by killing them alone.
When the day for that decision comes, no doubt the war will be renewed; the old straw
will be thrashed over before new committees; former publications will not be reread,
but they will be reprinted—all at the usual public expense.
CHARLES NAGEL.
REVIEW OF MR. NAGEL’S STATEMENT BY HENRY W. ELLIOTT.
WasHINGTON, D. C., March 24, 1914.
Hon. JoHn H. RorHeRMEL,
Chairman House Committee on Expenditures Department of Commerce.
Srr: In response to your request of even date that I read and review a brief state-
ment addressed to you by the late Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Charles Nagel,
dated March 19, 1914, I respectfully submit the following:
Mr. Nagel has prepared this statement aforesaid under caption of several heads,
which I will address myself to in the order of their sequence.
Under head of—
I. ‘‘THe DEPARTMENT’S ATTITUDE TO THE LEASING SYSTEM.”’
Mr. Nagel makes a labored and futile attempt to deny his own official record and
the facts that belong to it. The departmental letters which he authorized, and
which confound him now, in the premises are as follows, to wit:
The fact that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had resolved, upon renewing
the lease ‘‘to the best and highest bidder,’’ etc., as early as October 23, 1909, was
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 841
seli-confessed by that correspondence of his own officialism, which was sent to the
House by him June 24, 1911, in obedience to the order of House resolution No. 73.
That the machinery of the office of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had been
set in motion by order of the Secretary himself as early as October 23, 1909, so that
this renewal of the lease should be made, is attested by the following official letter
of Mr. Nagel’s direction, to wit (see p. 149, hearing No. 3, 1911; July 6, 1911, H. Com.
Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor):
{Exhibit No. 1.]
OcToBER 23, 1909.
Mr. Waiter L. LEMBKEY,
Agent Seal Fisheries of Alaska, Department of Commerce and Labor.
My Dear Mr. Lemspxey: Will you please furnish me at your early convenience—
say, by Wednesday at the latest—with a statement containing approximately 800
or 900 words regarding conditions on the fur-seal islands. The Secretary wishes me
to give the widest publicity to the termination of the contract and to the department’s
intention to advertise for proposals next spring. The Associated Press has promised
to send a story all over the country and wishes to add enough readable matter to make
it interesting.
I suggest that your statement describe all that it consistently can of the contract
and its terms, and also contain data regarding the life of the natives on the islands—
their church, school, mode of subsistence, liquor privileges to the church, etc. Of
course, incidents of the past season will be welcome. I want to give a good story to
the Associated Press, and you need have no hesitancy in setting forth the facts, for
it is the Secretary’s desire that they be given publicity within reason.
Very truly, yours,
T. L. WEED, Chief Clerk.
The newspaper notices which were prepared and published in accordance with this
order oi the Secretary, as above cited, appeared all over the country as early as October
30, 1909 (in papers like the Boston Transcript), and were reappearing at intervals
everywhere up to February 21, 1910.
These semiofficial publications in the daily press aroused certain public-spirited
citizens, who addressed protests to Secretary Nagel as early as November 4-10, 1909.
The Secretary paid no attention to them, but called his ‘‘advisory board’’ on fur-seal
service, with Dr. D. 8. Jordan as president, into session, and received from that
board a recommendation that the lease be renewed on November 23,1909. That this
board did so recommend that renewal of this lease is fully attested by the official record
as below, certified to by the Bureau of Fisheries, George M. Bowers, commissioner,
under date of December 15, 1909, to wit (see p. 152, hearing No. 3, 1911; July 6, 191],
House Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor):
[Exhibit 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 seal islands. This has been prepared by Mr. Lembkey and myself in
compliance with your request. We have endeavored to make the form of the lease
agree with the recommendations recently made by the advisory board, fur-seal service,
in conference with the fur-seal board. For your convenience a number of references
and citations have been indicated. It is believed that an examination of this tenta-
tive draft will enable the Secretary to arrive at the exact form desired.
Respectfully,
Barton W. EVERMANN,
Assistant in charge Scientific Inquiry.
This draft of the ‘‘ proposed” lease appears in full on page 153, hearing No. 3, 1911,
and attached to it was a ‘‘memorandum” explanatory, in which the following occurs
(see p. 155, hearing No. 3, 1911):
“The lease should he renewed. It is foolish to abolish killing on land while seals
are being killed in the water. Cessation of killing on land means encouragement 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.”’
In the meantime it seems that those citizens who had endeavored in vain to get
a denial of Secretary Nagel’s intention to renew this lease, November 4-10, 1909, then
turned to Congress for that action which would compel Mr. Nagel to desist. They
842 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
induced United States Senator Dixon to introduce December 7, 1909, a concurrent
resolution, directing Secretary Nagel not to renew the lease, and ‘suspending all com-
mercial killing on the Pribilot Islands for 10 years, etc. (8. Res. No. 90).
Thereupon, Mr. Secretary Nagel’s officials went to work to defeat Dixon’s resolu-
tions. The following proof officially certified to by the officialism that these men
were so engaged is found on page 157, hearing No. 3, 1911, House Comniittee on
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, to wit:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR,
BUREAU OF FISHERIES,
Washington, December 16, 1909.
.
The COMMISSIONER:
The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Campfire Club, of
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation
designed to prevent the re- leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on
the islands for 10 years except for natives’ food, “and to secure the opening of negotia-
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon,
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904.
As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent
killing and the renewal of the seal-island lease, the advisability is suggested of having
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members
of the 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.
These gentlemen, as named above in this letter—‘‘ Townsend, Lucas*”—were mem-
bers of Secretary Nagel’s ‘‘advisory board” on fur-seal service, which had urged this
renewal of the lease, as above attested. They got busy. (See pp. 724-725, hearing
No. 12, 1911; pp. 799-800, hearing No. 13, in re Lucas; and pp. 159-160, hearing No. 3,
1911, inre Townsend.) This official activity stirred the Campfire Club of America to
action, so that it induced Senator Dixon to call his Committee on Conservation of
National Resources together, on February 26, 1910, as attested by the following sworn
evidence on pages 232-235, hearing No. 5, 1911, to wit:
‘“CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE WORK OF THE CAMPFIRE CLUB OF AMERICA IN
PREVENTING CHARLES NAGEL FROM RENEWING THE FUR-SEAL LEASE.
‘October 29, 1909.—Mr. Hornaday, as chairman of the committee on game-
protective legislation and preserves of the Campfire Club of America, addressed
a letter to Senator Joseph M. Dixon, Missoula, Mont., stating the deplorable case of
the fur-seal herds and industry, proposing that Congress and the President be asked
‘to wipe off the slate,’ ‘let the dead past bury its dead,’ and ‘start out for an absolutely
new deal,’ having for its object the saving of the fur-seal herd both as a commercial
and an ideal proposition. Mr. Hornaday offers to appear before Senator Dixon’s
Committee on the Conservation of National Resources, with other representatives of
the Campfire Club, to present a formal memorial and to suggest a plan of action.
‘* November 8.—Senator Dixon advises Mr. Hornaday that he is willing to take
up the fur-seal matter, and will introduce the bill or resolution proposed on the first
day that Congress convenes.
“ November 12.—Mr. Hornaday wrote to Senator Dixon, inclosing the original
draft of the resolution that was introduced by him December 7 1890. (S. 90.)
‘*‘ November 23.—At a meeting of the ‘advisory hoard of the fur- ‘seal service, Bureau
of Fisheries,’ held in Washington, a series of six recommendations were unanimously
agreed upon and immediately transmitted to the Commissioner of Fisheries. In
recommendations 1 and 2 it was plainly evident that the advisory board was in favor
of the execution of a new lease and of continued killing up to 95 per cent of the 3-year-
old males. In view of the alarmingly depleted condition of the fur- seal herd, these
‘recommendations of the advisory board’ caused great disquietude in the Campfire
Club. These recommendations played an important part in stimulating the subse-
quent activities of the club in behalf of the fur seal. The Campfire Club was unable
to understand how, in the existing condition of the fur-seal industry, the advisory
board could find it desirable to execute a new lease and to continue wholesale
slaughter on land.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 843
“December 1.—The Campfire Club sent out to the leading newspapers of the
United States a circular letter stating its belief that the time had arrived for ‘some
independent citizens to step into the arena in behalf of the fur-seal industry and
virtually compel the action that this Government should have taken two or three
years ago.” With this circular letter to editors was sent a news article entitled ‘Loss
oi the fur-seal industry. Former source of revenue now an annual loss. Will Amer-
ican people preserve their own property?’ This article was published in about 25
newspapers on or about December 10, 1909.
“* December 7.—Senator Joseph M. Dixon, chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Conservation of National Resources, introduced Senate resolution No. 90, under the
title ‘In regard to the Preservation of the Fur-seal Herd.’ An attempt was made to
secure a reference of the resolution to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
which was defeated by Senator Dixon’s motion to lay the resolution on the table in
the Senate.
** January 15, 1910 —The Campfire Club of America, by the chairman of its com-
mittee on game-protective legislation and preserves, addressed a letter to the President
oi the United States setting forth the deplorable features of the fur-seal situation,
giving a brief résumé of the subject at that date, and closing with the following words:
‘In conclusion, we entreat you to place the fur seal on your list of emergency measures
and call upon Congress to pronounce for no new killing lease, a 10-years’ close season,
and the independent treaties that are necessary with England and Canada, Japan,
Russia, and Mexico.’
January 20—The Campfire Club of America addressed to Hon. Charles Nagel,
Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor, an urgent letter, signed by
Ernest Thompson Seton, president, and 13 members of the committee on game-pro-
tective legislation and preserves, urging him to cooperate in securing the three objects
declared for in Senate resolution No. 90, and in the President’s club letter namely,
“No new killing lease, a 10-year close season, and treaties for the suppression of pelagic
sealing.’
“ February 15—The Campfire Club’s resolution, introduced by Senator Dixon
December 7, 1909, and laid upon the table, was taken from the table and referred to
the Senate Committee on the Conservation of National Resources.
“ February 24.—Uaving received positive information to the effect that the Depart-
ment of Commerce and Labor was on the point of advertising for bids for the awarding
oi a new lease for the killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands for the next 20 years, the
Campfire Club directed Chairman Hornaday to go at once to Washington and ask for
a hearing before the Senate Committee on the Conservation of National Resources.
“February 25.—Mr. Hornaday appeared in Washington. An emergency call had
already been sent out by Senator Dixon for a meeting of his committee on the follow-
ing day.
“ February 26.—The Campfire Club’s representative appeared before the Senate
Committee on the Conservation of National Resources.
“Present: Senators Dixon (chairman), Dillingham, Dolliver, Bankhead, Jones,
Heyburn, Clark of Wyoming, Dick, Newlands, Overman, and Smith of South Carolina.
“The report of this hearing appears as Senate Document No. 605, published on
June 1, 1910, with maps and illustrations. Mr. Hornaday presented facts and figures
and contended for the three measures asked at the hands of Congress in Senate resolu-
tion No. 90, with special urgency for action by the committee against a new lease.
““ February 26—The Senate Committee on the Conservation of National Resources
at the close of the hearing adopted a resolution directing the chairman to represent
to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor the inadvisability of executing a new lease
for the killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands under the old contract system. The
chairman was requested to confer with Secretary Nagel on this whole subject.”’
Senator Dixon, acting under this instruction of his committee, as above attested,
called promptly on Secretary Nagel, and found that official busy with the preparation
of the new sealing advertisement for ‘“‘proposals” from bidders, ete.
Of course the Secretary did not go further. It is unnecessary to tell the House
why, after such an order came to him from the Senate. He made as his excuse to
Dixon the claim that he law was ‘‘mandatory,’’ etc. ‘Then, why do you oppose
my resolution repealing it?” asked Dixon. The result was that he, at Dixon’s sug-
gestion, prepared a draft of a bill to order such a repeal, which Dixon introduced as
Senate bill 7242, on March 16, 1910, immediately after the President had sent a special
message covering it to Congress on March 15, 1910. (Hearing No. 5, p. 235, July 13,
1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor.)
844 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
No sophistry of the officialism concerned can hide these naked self-confessed facts,
.as above exhibited and as put into the testimony, duly sworn and certified to this
committee.
From this subject of the leasing system Mr. Nagel proceeds to—
TI. ‘‘Tar DEPARTMENT’S EFFORTS FOR A TREATY TO SUPPRESS PELAGIC SEALING.”’
The following facts of brief yet sworn testimony declare that the existing fur-seal
treaty is the ‘‘Hay-Elliott fur-seal treaty plan of mutual concession and joint control,”
which John Hay, Sir Mortimer Durand (Br. Amb.), the senatorial committee (Gov.
W. P. Dillingham, chairman), and Henry W. Elliott perfected March 7-17, 1905,
and which treaty plan was held up by the accident of John Hay’s sickness in March,
1905, and subsequent death July 1, following. That it was forced out of the State
Department by the Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources Febru-
ary 4, 1911, after being held up all these long years by interests that Mr. Nagel faith-
fully served, as well as his immediate predecessors—by the lessees, is a matter of
sworn proof given to this committee in detail, and will be found in hearing No. 45,
July 11, 1911, pages 165-184.
On page 62, hearing No. 1, January 17, 1914, I have given to your committee the
following indisputable summary, which has been verified by sworn testimony, to wit:
“This is the Hay-Elliott treaty of mutual concession and joint control with Great
Britain, which Henry W. Elliott drew up in 1904-5, and which John Hay approved
in March, 1905, and which his sickness and death in July following prevented the
ratification of in June, 1905, at Ottawa; the lessees then came into power at the State
Department after Hay’s death, and, with the help of Dr. Jordan and his ‘scientists,’
prevented any action on it until it was forced out of the State Department by the
Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources February 4, 1911, and
into the Senate February 8, 1911, and then ratified there February 15, 1901, its
terms being kept secret until Japan and Russia united in them, July 7, 1911.
III. ““Pretacic Seating Havinae Breen ABOLISHED, WuHiIcH Poticy WouLp Best
CONSERVE THE SEAL HERDS?”
Under this caption Mr. Nagel has a long, involved, and indeterminate saying to the
end that while he himself did not know anything and could not be expected reason-
ably to know anything about seals, yet he had a group of highly specialized fur-seal
“experts” under his direction, upon whom he did rely for all he did; that he still
believes them wholly competent to advise him and believes they ‘‘advised” him
“well.”?
Were these men “competent”? Did they possess knowledge which he asserts to
you they had as “‘competent experts”?
Under oath each and every one of these ‘‘experts,’’ these ‘“‘competent” men,
denied to this committee that they had any precise or exact knowledge of what
Charles Nagel was doing in re killing seals. They declared, each and every one of
them, that they did not know of their own personal knowledge whether or no Charles
Nagel’s agents were killing seals in violation of law or whether they had ever killed
‘“‘vearling” seals, since not one of them know what a yearling seal was.
Every one of these ‘‘experts’” —Smith, Lucas, Bowers, Townsend, Clark, Stejneger,
Merriam, and Evermann—every one of them, under oath, swore that they did not
know what a yearling sealskin was.
And the one man—the one ‘‘expert’’ who did know—named by Nagel, W. I.
Lembkey, confessed to this committee that in one single season he had taken 7,733
yearling sealskins of his own identification and measurement as such. (See hearing
No. 14, July 29, 1912, pp. 897-920.)
IV. ‘Errort IN THE Past To Avorn PERSONAL CONTROVERSY.”
Under this head Mr. Nagel attempts to conceal the fact that he has written the most
brutal, arrogant, and insulting official letter to a good citizen, that the records of high
official life can show. He attempts to conceal the fact that he opened this “ discus-
sion’? with that letter, and that he sent up to this committee, June 24, 1911, a series
of studied defamatory personal articles all prepared by his subordinates, reflecting
upon me, and falsifying my record. They were actually scandalous, and this man
Charles Nagel can no more stand up and assert them successfully in the presence of
this committee, than he can fly. Over 20 close-printed pages of this personal drivel,
slander, and abominable falsehood are bound up in “ Appendix A,” which covers his
answer to House resolution 73, Sixty-second Congress, first session, June 28 to July
6, 1911 (H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor). This was an “effort” on his
part that soon wrought his undoing.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 845
V. “Some oF THE CHARACTERISTIC CHARGES.”
Under this caption Mr. Nagel runs along with a series of absolutely idle statements
not one beginning or ending anywhere. Take for instance his explanation of the
“suppression” of the Clark report. After saying that he doubts “whether” he “ per-
sonally ever read it,” he has this statement to make, anent it.
“Furthermore, Dr. H. M. Smith of the Bureau of Fisheries (now its chief) did bring
this report to my attention, on August 31, 1909, and that report was soon after trans-
mitted to the State Department for its use in connection with the negotiations for a
treaty.”
That this statement as above quoted is absolutely untrue—is a studied untruth to
deceive—let me tell you that Mr. Clark’s report was not finished until ‘September 30,
ee ond did not reach Mr. Nagel’s hand until October 8, 1909. (See p. 829, Appen-
x A.)
He again attempts to break the force of his suppression of Clark’s report by saying,
“Tf, on the other hand, it is meant that the Clark report was suppressed because it was
not printed, I must call attention to the fact that any attempt by the department to
print all similar reports would have resulted in an early exhaustion of its annual
appropriation.”’
li Mr. Nagel was sincere in that statement, then why did he print Lembkey’s report
for 1909 and put Clark’s for 1909 into cold storage? Why did he print and distribute
Lembkey’s report for 1909 when Clark’s report of 1909 declared it to be false.
He attempts to convey the idea that because he never heard of the ‘‘Carlisle rules”
of 1896, they ‘‘probably had never been transmitted to my department.”’
That this is a puerile suggestion need not be set forth, when it is known that the law
which placed all of the fur-seal records and all of the details of the fur-seal officialism
and business, carried them from the Treasury Department to the Commerce and
Labor Department July 1, 1903, and there they were all of this time up to the hour he
attempts to deny them as above.
VI. ‘‘THE ConTENTION THAT NO MALE SEAL SHOULD Have BEEN KILLED.”’
Under this head Mr. Nagel attempts to tell you that nothing but ‘‘an honest differ-
ence of opinion” exists. He says, ‘‘I have named the men of authority and experi-
ence who counseled me, a disregard of whose advice by me might well have given
ground for complaint. They were supported by Mr. Henry F. Osborn, president of
the New York Zoological Society,’ etc.
I have just exposed the ignorance of each and every one of his ‘‘men of experience
who counseled” him; let me throw some light on the experience of ‘‘Mr. Henry F.
Osborn,”’ as above quoted. .
On May 16, 1912, Dr. F. A. Lucas, one of Mr. Nagel’s ‘‘men of experience who coun-
seled me,’’ under oath had this to say of the sense and truth of Mr. Henry F. Osborn’s
writing, to wit:
ie Exuiorr. Did Ogden Mills ever confer with you in regard to leasing the seal
islands? é
“Dr. Lucas. No; I do not know Ogden Mills. I never met him.
“Mr. Exuiorr. That is right. The other gentleman, Mr. Townsend, does. 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 anything about it?
“Dr. Lucas. Only after it was written.
“The CHairMAN. Were you in consultation about it with anyone?
“Dr. Lucas. No; my advice was not asked.
“Mr. Extiotr. Did you volunteer any?
“Dr. Lucas. We had discussed, President Osborn and myself had discussed, the
seal question, but he never asked me in regard to this particular letter.
“Mr. Exuiotr. This letter is dated ‘New York, January 22, 1912,’ and is signed
by ‘Henry Fairfield Osborn,’ and addressed to ‘Hon. William Sulzer, House Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives.’ You have seen the letter on
page 19 of the report?
“Dr. Lucas. Yes; I read it shortly after it appeared.
“Mr. Exuiotr. Do you agree with Mr. Osborn in this statement:
“‘New YORK ZooLocicaL SOcrEty,
“*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 amendment for a 15-year closed season on
male seals.
846 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
‘‘This amendment is a vicious one, which will certainly lead to the complete
extermination of the seals. I understand it was proposed by Mr. Elliott, who has
no standing in this country as a zoologist and, I believe, is supported by my friend,
Dr. Hornaday, whom, I regret to say, has come under the influence of Mr. Elliott.
Dr. Hornaday’s pesition in the matter is entirely personal and does not in any way
represent the judgment of the New York Zcological Society. All the zoologists of
note in this country, all the scientific experts whose opinions are worthy of consid-
eration, all the trained experts who have made a special study of the fur-seal prob-
lem, all naturalists who understand that an excess of males is fatal to both the females
and the young, and, finally, all those who desire through intelligent study of the
question from motives of humanity, as well as from motives to protect the economic
interests of the United States, are opposed to the 15-year closed season.
‘‘The reason is a very simple one, which you can yourself readily understand—
namely, that there is an unnatural excess of males on the islands, due to the fact
that pelagic sealing has destroyed 85 females cut of the 100 in the herd; thus the
balance of nature has been destroyed. When there are not enough females to go
around, the bulls will fight for them, and in doing so will kill both the females and
the pups. Under natural conditions of breeding there would be an equal number
oi females and males. Nature takes care of these things, but the pelagic sealers have
produced a set of new and entirely artificial conditions. Consequently the proposal
of the United States Fish Commission 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.
‘“‘T have given this matter very prolonged study and have read all the documents,
and I regret to say that your committee has been given a great amount of misinforma-
tion under the guise of sentiment for the protection of these animals. I am one of
the most ardent advocates of protection 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 emphat-
ically. 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 committee at short notice a document
signed by all of these men. The article by Hugh M. Smith, of the United States
Fisheries Bureau, one of the finest and most unprejudiced and unbiased men of
science in the country, in the last number of the National Geographical Magazine
exactly expresses the truth on this subject.
‘*With your permission, I should like to publish this letter, but will not do so with-
out your permission.
‘*With best wishes for the prosecution of the many grave and important questions
which are before your committee, and with continued personal regard, I am,
“Sincerely, yours,
‘‘Henry FarrFretp Ossporn, President.
“Hon. Win1iraM SULZER,
‘Chairman House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
“ House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
“Dr. Lucas. I do not agree with that, which shows very plainly I did not inspire
the letter.
“Mr. Evtrorr (reading):
“THe AMERICAN Musrum or Naturat History,
‘‘OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
‘New York, January 22, 1912.
“Dear Srr: As president of the American 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 desire to
rotest against the proposed amendment to the fur-seal bill (drafted by the State
epartment), which amendment provides a 15-year closed season on male seals. This
amendment, should it become law, would exterminate the great seal herd of the
United States, and is founded upon ignorance of the first principles of breeding under
natural conditions, and of the artificial conditions which have been brought about
on the islands through prolonged and fateful pelagic sealing.
“Tam, very respectfully,
“Henry FarrFretD Osporn, President.
“Hon. Winiram SULZER,
“Chairman House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
“* House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
“T am strongly in favor of the bill itself.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 847
“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. Exttiorr. How did he get that impression, if not from you?
“Dr. Lucas. Ido not know. You will find all my publications entirely different
from that.
“Mr. Extiorr. So you will not be responsible for what Dr. Osborn says?
“Dr. Lucas. Not in this case; certainly not.’’
You can therefore understand what this ‘“‘advice” really was worth, Mr. Chairman,
when you note the fact that it is self-confessed nonsense and worse, which Mr. Charles
Nagel relied upon.
Mr. Nagel under this head says: “ Briefly stated, the considerations upon which the
decision to continue the killing of male seals was reached, were these: The law left the
decision absolutely with the Secretary. There is no doubt about its terms and Senator
Dixon in reporting the bill so explained to the Senate. It is doubtful whether the bill
could have been pasesd if it had contained a provision for a closed season.”’
That Mr. Charles Nagel has deliberately attempted to deceive you as to what the
temper of the Senate really was—to deny its intention to have a closed season—please
observe the following extracts from the Congressional Record covering the debate
when the bill was up and passed, March 28, 1910, to wit:
“Mr. Dixon. I will again say, then, that owing to the urgency of the present situ-
ation, under the provisions of the present leasing law, the lease for killing fur seals
expiresin April. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor believes that its provisions
are mandatory unless those provisions are repealed. The President sent in his message
one day last week urging the enactment of this legislation. This bill, which has now
been reported with some amendments, was drafted by the Secretary of Commerce and
Labor. He appeared before the committee, urging its passage, yesterday. The bill
was also referred to the Secretary of State, and he favorably recommends the imme-
diate passage of the bill. On account of the urgency of the case, the bill having to go
through both Houses, IJ ask for its consideration at this time,
“The bill, in effect, if the Senator has a copy of it on his desk, repeals the present
leasing law and puts the killing of the seals entirely under the control of the Secretary
of Commerce and Labor.
“Mr. Hare. Now, upon that important detail, what change does that effectuate in
the law?
“Mr. Drxon. It, in effect, gives the Secretary of Commerce and Labor the right to
declare a closed season. All the zoologists and scientists and Government officials
who appeared before the committee were, I think, unanimous in expressing the belief
that unless some immediate legislation was had two or three years would see the exter-
mination of the fur seal in the North Pacific waters.
“Mr. Hate. Then there is no existing law which authorizes any Secretary or any-
body to inaugurate a closed time?
“Mr. Dixon. None,
“Mr. Hare. This is a new feature?
“Mr. Dixon. It is a new feature so far as that is concerned.
“Mr. Hate. Does the Senator believe, and do the committee and the Secretary
believe, that it is absolutely essential to the preservation of the seal?
“Mr. Drxon. Both Secretaries so believe, and that is the unanimous opinion of the
committee and of every man who appeared before it from the Government departments
and outside scientists and zoologists.
“Mr. Hate. Is it all open now without a closed time?
“Mr. Dixon. Under the present provision of the old act passed 20 years ago, the
Secretary of Commerce and Labor must iet a contract for killing the seals to some com-
pany. That expires in April. He feels that the provisions are absolutely manda-
tory, and unless the repeal takes effect at once he will have to go ahead and let the
contract to either the present company or some other conpany.
“This provision puts it in the power of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to
make a closed season if he so desires, and if the seals shall multiply and increase, it is
under his control to kill in the future as many male seals as can be done without di-
minishing the herd.
“Mr, Hate. Without having much real information on the subject, I should agree
with the Senator that unless something be done the practical extirpation will follow.
“Mr. Dixon. It is immediate.
“Mr. Hate. Whether this remedy will be effective or not nobody can tell. The
disappearance, unregulated, before the ravage of the human race of the animals and
fish upon shore and in the sea, as the Senator knows, is something remarkable. The
848 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA.
rule isall one way. The disappearance of the bison was a most amazing manifestation
cf what will take place in the destruction of animals before the raid of commercial
man.
‘““Now, whether this device will save the seal and, as the Senator hopes, lead to an
increase, I do not know. I have not the confidence the Senator has, but I think he is
proceeding in the right direction. I hope it will come out as well as the Senator be-
lieves; but human legislation is unavailing before the attack of predatory man.”
Here you observe that the Senate was informed by Chairman Dixon that this bill
was up to them for the purpose of “inaugurating a close season,’’ and so expressly de-
clared to the Senators who opposed the same with that full understanding. How
‘puerile is Charles Nagel’s attempt to deny this official record of that debate, and how
idle.
Mr. Charles Nagel under this head closes with the solemn nonsense of this assertion:
“Tn no respect was the traditional attitude of this Government deviated irom until the
law of 1912, in its provision for a five-year closed season, virtually repudiated the repre-
sentations upon which the United States delegates (Nagel and Anderson) in the con-
vention had secured the consent of the delegates of the other countries to the terms
of the treaty as it now stands.”’
That this ‘traditional policy” was founded on a false basis which was substituted
at Paris, in 1893, for our claim, in leu of the truth in the premises, at the behest of
private interests, did not and does not concern the servants of that private interest—
men like Charles Nagel; but the Senate held too many clear-headed men for such an
outrageous public imposition to endure as was Mr. Charles Nagel’s ‘‘ traditional atti-
tude” toward our foreign seal herd. _So an end to the same was made in go far as that
‘traditional attitude” went, for the good of the herd.
Finally, under this head, Mr. Nagel makes the following ‘‘confession and avoid-
ance” of guilt in the premises, as I have charged him, in re killing yearling seals; he
says:
“Tf it were true (and this has been conclusively disproved) that too young seals
have been killed, the Government would still get the proceeds and no one else.”’
Here you have him self-confessed as being willing to violate the laws and regulations,
in re killing yearlings for the excuse that ‘‘ the Government would still get the proceeds,
and no one else.’’
At last and in conclusion, Mr. Charles Nagel throws off the mask and stands up in
his real color as a willing violator of the law because the Government will get money
from the proceeds of that malfeasance.
How, then, about the money which the lessees got under his willing sanction in
1909 when they took 7,320 ‘‘too young” seals in open, flagrant violation of the law
and the regulations of the department? Did that money which these men got satisfy
the conscience of Charles Nagel as a sworn public agent? He says it did.
Mr. Nagel closes this ‘‘brief statement” of his by saying: ‘‘Of my own knowledge
I know nothing of seal life, of the wisdom of or the unwisdom of killing this or that
percentage, of this or that age. I have seen the rookeries and some skins in a ware-
house. I doubt whether any other Secretary has seen as much. I never saw a seal
killed or a skin weighed, measured, or sold * * *. When I wrote Senator Jones
the letter which has been published in three different places, I gave the facts as they
were reported to me by officials who were responsible for their conduct to the Presi-
dent and tome. But I wrote more particularly to demonstrate (and upon this feature
there is no comment) that the account of sales of sealskins which had been published
to discredit the reports of the bureau had been doctored by inserting imaginary
measurements to sustain the theory of the charge.”’
Unhapily for Mr. Nagel, there is not a line in this letter to Senator Wesley L. Jones
(which is his own untruthful and defamatory letter) that refers to ‘‘measurements”’ of
any sort whatever. But he quotes a series of ‘“‘loaded”’ skin weights—the blubbered
se of yearling seals—to prove to Senator Jones that they are older seals, and so
deceive.
He ends this ‘‘brief statement’’ by telling the committee that he has no doubt in
his mind as to what the future will bring forth for the fur-seal herd when the closed
season, now in force, haslapsed. If he really believes that any ‘ ‘scientific’’ organiza-
tion can be again created like the one upon which he has relied, to reopen the question
which common sense has closed it with, I have not.
In conclusion, I think that Mr. Nagel has perhaps done himself scant justice in not
appearing before this committee. He was in this city weeks after he had received an
invitation to appear, and on similar business, to wit: on February 11, 1914.
INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 849
[Washington Post, February 12, 1914.] uv
“‘NAGEL ON WITNESS STAND—FORMER SECRETARY DENIES CHARGES OF LIGHTHOUSE
MISMANAGEMENT.
*‘Charles Nagel, former Secretary of Commerce and Labor, yesterday vigorously
denied charges of mismanagement of the Lighthouse Service during his régime. He
appeered before a special investigating board headed by Secretary of Commerce Red-
field.
‘*These charges, which were brought by W. J. La Varre, in charge of the New York
district, related to contracts let by A. P. Conover, a former deputy commissioner of the
service. ’’
There is no evidence given by him of the reason why he did not embrace this oppor-
tunity as above cited of appearing before you, since he did not leave Washington, D. C.,
until February 14, following.
I am, very respectfully,
Henry W. E .iorr.
538490—14——_54
SRN a Celie
ae
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11