Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

My Dear Sir Julian: I have extracted from official documents and appended hereto a large mass of evidence, given under oath by professional experts and officers of the United States, touching the subject upon which you desired further proof, namely, that the killing of seals in the open sea tends certainly and rapidly to the extermination of the species. If further evidence is desired, it can be readily furnished.

I have, etc.

James G. Blaine.
[Page 371]
[Inclosure.]*

From the official report made to the House of Representatives in 1889:

In former years fur-seals were found in great numbers on various islands of the South Pacific Ocean, but after a comparatively short period of indiscriminate slaughter the rookeries were deserted, the animals having been killed or driven from their haunts; so that now the only existing rookeries are those in Alaska, another in the Russian part of Behring Sea, and a third on Lobos Island, at the mouth of the river Plate in South America.

All these rookeries are under the protection of their several governments.

The best estimate as to the number of these animals on the Alaska rookeries places it at about 4,000,000; but a marked diminution of the numbers is noticed within the last two or three years, which is attributed by the testimony to the fact that unauthorized persons during the summers of 1886, 1887, and 1888 had fitted out expeditions and cruised in Alaskan waters, and by the use of fire-arms destroyed hundreds of thousands of these animals without regard to age or sex.

The law prohibits the killing of fur-seals in the Territory of Alaska or the waters thereof, except by the lessee of the seal islands, and the lessee is permitted to kill during the months of June, July, September, and October only; and is forbidden to kill any seal less than one year old, or any female seal, “or to kill such seals at any time by the use of fire-arms, or by any other means tending to drive the seals away from those islands.” (Revised Statutes, section 1960.)

Governor Simpson, of the Hudson Bay Company, in his “Overland Journey Round the World,” 1841–’42, p. 130, says:

Some twenty or thirty years ago there was a most wasteful destruction of the seal, when young and old, male and female, were indiscriminately knocked in the head. This imprudence, as any one might have expected, proved detrimental in two ways. The race was almost extirpated, and the market was glutted to such a degree, at the rate for some time of 200,000 skins a year, that the prices did not even pay the expenses of carriage. The Russians, however, have now adopted nearly the same plan which the Hudson Bay Company pursues in recruiting any of its exhausted districts, killing only a limited number of such males as have attained their full growth, a plan peculiarly applicable to the fur-seal, inasmuch as its habits render a system of husbanding the stock as easy and certain as that of destroying it.”

In the year 1800 the rookeries of the Georgian Islands produced 112,000 fur-seals. From 1806 to 1823, says the Encyclopædia Britannica, “The Georgian Islands produced 1,200,000 seals, and the island of Desolation has been equally productive.” Over 1,000,000 were taken from the island of Mas-á-Fuera and shipped to China in 1798–’99. (Fanning’s “Voyages to the South Sea,” p. 299.)

In 1820 and 1821 over 300,000 fur-seals were taken at the South Shetland Islands, and Captain Weddell states that at the end of the second year the species had there become almost exterminated. In addition to the number killed for their furs, he estimates that “not less than 100,000 newly born young died in consequence of the destruction of their mothers.” (See Elliott’s Rep., 1884, p. 118.)

In 1830 the supply of fur-seals in the South Seas had so greatly decreased that the vessels engaged in this enterprise “generally made losing voyages, from the fact that those places which were the resort of seals had been abandoned by them.” (Fanning’s Voyages, p. 487.)

At Antipodes Island, off the coast of New South Wales, 400,000 skins were obtained in the years 1814 and 1815.

Referring to these facts, Professor Elliott, of the Smithsonian Institution, in his able report on the Seal Islands, published by the Interior Department in 1884, says:

“This gives a very fair idea of the manner in which the business was conducted in the South Pacific. How long would our sealing interests in Behring Sea withstand the attacks of sixty vessels carrying from twenty to thirty men each? Not over two seasons. The fact that these great southern rookeries withstood and paid for attacks of this extensive character during a period of more than twenty years speaks eloquently of the millions upon millions that must have existed in the waters now almost deserted by them.”

Mr. R. H. Chapel, of New London, Conn., whose vessels had visited all the rookeries of the South Pacific, in his written statement before the Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, said:

“As showing the progress of this trade in fur-seal skins, and the abuses of its prosecution, resulting in almost total annihilation of the animals in some localities, it is stated on good authority that, from about 1770 to 1800, Kerguelen Land, in the Indian Ocean, yielded to the English traders over 1,000,000 skins; but open competition swept off the herds that resorted there, and since the latter year hardly 100 per annum [Page 372] could be obtained on all its long coast. Afterwards, Mas-á-Fuera Island, near Juan Fernandez, was visited, and 50,000 a year were obtained; but as every one that desired was free to go and kill, the usual result followed—the seals were exterminated at that island, and also at the Galapagos group, near by.

“Falkland and Shetland Islands, and South American coasts, near Cape Horn, came next in order; here the seal were very abundant. It is stated that at the Shetlands alone 100,000 per annum might have been obtained and the rookeries preserved, if taken under proper restrictions; but in the eagerness of men they killed old and young, male and female; little pups a few days old, deprived of their mothers, died by thousands on the beaches, carcasses and bones strewed the shores, and this productive fishery was wholly destroyed. It is estimated that in the years 1821 and 1822 no less that 320,000 of these animals were killed at the Shetlands alone. An American captain, describing in after years his success there, says: ‘We went the first year with one vessel and got 1,200; the second year with two vessels, and obtained 30,000; the third year with six vessels, getting only 1,700—all there was left.’

“A small rookery is still preserved at the Lobos Islands, off the river La Plata; this, being carefully guarded under strict regulations by the Government of Buenos Ayres, and rented to proper parties, yields about 5,000 skins per annum. As late as the year 1854, a small island, hardly a mile across, was discovered by Americans in the Japan Sea, where about 50,000 seals resorted annually. Traders visited it, and in three years the club and knife had cleaned them all off. Not 100 a season can now be found there.”

Hon. C. A. Williams, of Connecticut, who inherited the whaling and sealing business from his father and grandfather, speaking of the seal in the South Pacific, gave the following testimony before the Congressional committee:

The history of sealing goes back to about 1790, and from that to the early part of this century.

In the earlier period of which I speak there were no seals known in the North Pacific Ocean. Their peculiar haunt was the South Atlantic. They were discovered by Cook, in his voyages, on the island of Desolation; by Widdall, in his voyages to the south pole, on the island of South Georgia and Sandwichland; and by later voyagers, whose names escape me, in the islands of the South Pacific Ocean. When the number of seals on those islands were first brought to the notice of British merchants, they pursued the hunting of these animals on the island of Desolation.

The most authentic authority we have about the matter is derived from reports made by these voyagers as to the number of seals taken from those places, and, although they are not entirely accurate, I think they are fully as accurate as could be expected, considering the lapse of time. On the island of Desolation it is estimated that 1,200,000 fur-seals were taken; from the island of South Georgia a like number were taken, and from the island of Mas-á-Fuera probably a greater number were taken. As to the Sandwichland the statistics are not clear, but there can be no doubt that over 500,000 seals were taken from that locality, and in 1820 the islands of South Shetland, south of Cape Horn, were discovered, and from these islands 320,000 fur-seals were taken in two years. There were other localities from which seals were taken, but no others where they were found in such large numbers.

* * * * * * *

The cause of the extermination of seals in those localities was the indiscriminate character of the slaughter. Sometimes as many as fifteen vessels would be hanging around these islands awaiting opportunity to get their catch, and every vessel would be governed by individual interests. They would kill every thing that came in their way that furnished a skin, whether a cow, a bull, or a middle-grown seal, leaving the young pups just born to die from neglect and starvation. It was like taking a herd of cattle and killing all the bulls and cows and leaving the calves. The extermination was so complete in these localities that the trade was exhausted, and voyages to those places were abandoned. About 1870, nearly fifty years after the discovery of the South Shetland Islands, when the occupation of Alaska by the cession of Russia to the United States of the Behring Sea was brought about—

The Chairman. I want to interrupt you to ask a question on that point. Were those rookeries in the South Seas never under the protectorate of any government at all?

The Witness. Never. I was going to say that when the cession was made by Russia to the United States of this territory, and the subject of the value of fur-seals, or the possible value, was brought to mind, people who had been previously engaged in that business revisited these southern localities after a lapse of nearly fifty years, and no seals were found on the island of Desolation. These islands have been used as the breeding place for sea-elephants, and that creature can not be exterminated on that island for the reason that certain beaches known as “weather beaches” [Page 373] are there. The sea breaks rudely upon these beaches, and it is impossible to land upon them. There are cliffs, something like 300 to 500 feet, of shore ice, and the sea-elephant finds a safe resort on these beaches, and still preserves enough life to make the pursuit of that animal worth following in a small way.

I have vessels there, and have had, myself and father, for fifty or sixty years. But this is incidental. The island of South Shetland, and the island of South Georgia, and the island of Sandwichland, and the Diegos, off Cape Horn, and one or two other minor points were found to yield more or less seal. In this period of fifty years in these localities seal life had recuperated to such an extent that there was taken from them in the six years from 1870 to 1876 or 1877 perhaps 40,000 skins.

Q. After they had been abandoned for fifty years?—A. Yes; to-day they are again exhausted. The last year’s search of vessels in that region—I have the statistics here of a vessel from Stonington from the South Shetland Islands, reported in 1888, and she procured 39 skins as the total result of search on those islands and South Georgia.

One of my own vessels procured 61 skins, including 11 pups, as the total result of her voyage; and, except about Cape Horn, there are, in my opinion, no seals remaining. I do not think that 100 seals could be procured from all the localities mentioned by a close search. Any one of those localities I have named, under proper protection and restrictions, might have been perpetuated as a breeding place for seals, yielding as great a number per annum as do the islands belonging to the United States.

Now, the trade in those localities is entirely exhausted, and it would be impossible in a century to restock those islands, or bring them back to a point where they would yield a reasonable return for the investment of capital in hunting skins. That, in brief, completes the history of the fur-seal in the South Atlantic Ocean.

The following is from the committee’s report:

danger of the extermination of the alaska rookeries.

We have already mentioned that the present number of seals on St. Paul and St. George islands has materially diminished during the last two or three years. The testimony discloses the fact that a large number of British and American vessels, manned by expert Indian seal hunters, have frequented Behring Sea and destroyed hundreds of thousands of fur-seals by shooting them in the water, and securing as many of the carcasses for their skins as they were able to take on board. The testimony of the Government agents shows that of the number of seals killed in the water not more than one in seven, on an average, is secured, for the reason that a wounded seal will sink in the sea; so that for every thousand seal-skins secured in this manner there is a diminution of seal life at these rookeries of at least 7,000. Added to this is the fact that the shooting of a female seal with young causes the death of both. If the shooting is before delivery, that, of course, is the end of both; if after, the young seal dies for want of sustenance.

During the season of 1885 the number of contraband seal-skins placed on the market was over 13,000; and in 1886, 25,000; in 1887, 34,000; and in 1888 the number of illicit skins secured by British cruisers was less than 25,000, which number would have been largely increased had not the season been very stormy and boisterous. American citizens respected the law and the published notice of the Secretary of the Treasury, and made no attempt to take seals.

From this it appears that, during the last three years, the number of contraband seal skins placed on the market amounted to over 97,000, and which, according to the testimony, destroyed nearly three-quarters of a million of fur-seals, causing a loss of revenue amounting to over $2,000,000, at the rate of tax and rental paid by the lessee of the seal islands.

LIMITATION: THE LESSEE FORBIDDEN TO KILL ANY FEMALE SEAL.

The following is an extract from the official report to Congress:

The lessee is permitted to kill 100,000 fur-seals on St. Paul and St. George Islands, and no more, and is prohibited from killing any female seal or any seal less than one year old, and from killing any fur-seal at any time except during the months of June, July, September, and October, and from killing such seals by the use of fire-arms or other means tending to drive the seals from said islands, and from killing any seal in the water adjacent to said islands, or on the beaches, cliffs, or rocks where they haul up from the sea to remain.

Further extract from report:

It is clear to your committee from the proof submitted that to prohibit seal killing on the seal islands and permit the killing in Behring Sea would be no protection; for it is not on the islands where the destruction of seal life is threatened or seals are unlawfully killed, but it is in that part of Behring Sea lying between the eastern and [Page 374] western limits of Alaska, as described in the treaty of cession, through which the seals pass and repass in going to and from their feeding grounds, some 50 miles southeast of the rookeries, and in their annual migrations to and from the islands.

Extract from report of L. N. Buynitsky, agent of the Treasury in 1870, to Hon. George L. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury. It will be observed that this report was made in 1870, before any dispute had arisen with the Canadian sealers.

When the herd has been driven 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 life-long experience, and is of the utmost importance, as the killing of females, which are easily mistaken for young males, even by the natives, would endanger the propagation of the species.

The same witness, when not an employé of the Treasury, gave testimony on another point in 1889:

Q. Where are those seals born? Where do the female seals give birth to their young?—A. They are born on the rookeries.

Q. Are they an animal or a fish, or what are they; how do you classify them?—A. They are hot-blooded animals born on the land; they are not a fish.

Q. And born on the United States territory, are they?—A. Yes; all those born on the islands of St. Paul and St. George.

Q. That is in United States territory?—A. Yes, sir. “Fisheries” is a misnomer all the way through, and always was.

H. A. Glidden, an agent of the Treasury Department, was on the Pribylov Islands from May, 1882, to June, 1885. In describing before the Congressional committee the mode of killing seals by the lessee of the islands the following occurred:

Q. Do they kill any females?—A. They never kill females. I do not know of but one or two instances in my experience where a female seal was ever driven out with the crowd.

* * * * * * *

Q. Do you believe seal life can be preserved without Government protection over them?—A. I do not.

W. B. Taylor, a Treasury agent, was asked the same question as to the killing of female seals, and he said that “he had never known but one or two killed by the lessee on the islands, and they by accident.” He was further asked as follows:

Q. When they kill the seals in the waters, about what proportion of them do they recover?—A. I do not believe more than one-fourth of them.

Q. The others sink?—A. They shoot them and they sink.

Q. Have you ever noticed any wounded ones that came ashore that have been shot?—A. No, sir; I do not think I did.

The same witness testified as follows:

Q. You do not think, then, that the value of the seal fisheries and the seal rookeries could be preserved under an open policy?—A. No, sir; I do not. I think if you open it they will be destroyed without question.

Q. Do you think it necessary to protect the seals in the sea and down in their feeding grounds in the Pacific, if possible, in order to preserve their full value and the perpetuity of seal life? Do you think they ought to be protected everywhere as well as on the rookeries?—A. Yes, sir; I think they ought to be protected not alone on the rookeries but on the waters of the Behring Sea. I do not think it is necessary to go outside of the Behring Sea, because there is no considerable number of them.

Q. Are they so dispersed in the Pacific that they would not be liable to destruction?—A. Yes, sir; they are scattered very much, and no hunters do much hunting in the Pacific, as I understand. Another reason why they should be protected in all the waters of the Behring Sea is this: A large number of seals that are on the islands of course eat a great many fish every twenty-four hours, and the fish have become well aware of the fact that there are a good many seal on the seal islands, and they stay out a longer distance from the islands, and they do not come near the shore. It becomes necessary for the seal themselves, the cows, to go a good distance into the sea in order to obtain food, and it is there where most of the damage is done by these vessels. They catch them while they are out

[Page 375]

Q. So on the rookeries they go out daily for food?—A. The cows go out every day for food. The bulls do not go; they stay on the island all summer. The cows go 10 and 15 miles and even farther—I do not know the average of it—and they are going and coming all the morning and evening. The sea is black with them around about the islands. If there is a little fog and they get out half a mile from shore, we can not see a vessel—100 yards even. The vessels themselves lay around the islands there where they pick up a good many seal, and there is where the killing of cows occurs when they go ashore. I think this is worse than it would be to take 25,000 more seal on the islands than are now taken. I think there is some damage done in the killing and shooting of the cows, and leaving so many young without their mothers.

Q. Is it your opinion that a larger number of seals may be taken annually without detriment to the rookeries?—A. No, sir; I would not recommend that. The time may come, but I think that one year with another they are taking all they ought to take, for this reason:

I believe that the capacity of the bull seal is limited, the same as any other animal, and I have very frequently counted from thirty to thirty-five and even, at one time, forty-two cows with one bull. I think if there were more bulls there would be less cows to one bull, and in that way the increase would be greater than now. While the number of seal in the aggregate is not apparently diminished, and in fact there is undoubtedly an increase, yet if you take any greater number of seal than is taken now, this ratio of cows to one bull would be greater, and for that reason there would be a less number of young seals, undoubtedly. I look upon the breeding of the seal as something like the breeding of any other animal, and that the same care and restriction and judgment should be exercised in this breeding.

The same witness testified as follows:

Q. What will be the effect upon the seal rookeries if this surreptitious and unlawful killing in the Behring Sea is to be permitted?—A. In my judgment it would eventually exterminate the seal.

Mr. C. A. Williams, of Connecticut, before referred to, testified as follows:

Q. I would like to know—I do not know that it is just the proper time—but I would like to get the idea of those conversant with the habits and nature of the seal as to what their opinion is upon the effect of the indiscriminate killing of them while they are coming to and going from the islands.—A. That is a question which I think most any of us here can answer. If you note the conformation of the Aleutian Islands, which form a wall, and note the gaps through which the seals come from the Pacific Ocean seeking the haunt on these islands, that is the whole point. When they come through these various passes, generally through the Oomnak Pass, the sea is reasonably shallow, and the cows come laden with pups, waiting until the last moment in the water to go ashore to deliver, because they can roll and scratch and help themselves better than if they haul out when heavy with pup, so they stay in the water playing about until their instinct warns them it is time to go ashore, and during that time they are massed in great quantities in the sea.

Q. Now, in that view of it, the destruction of them there is almost practically the same as the destruction of them on the islands?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the conditions are as bad?—A. Yes, sir; and often worse, for this reason: If you kill a pup you destroy a single life, but in killing a cow you not only destroy the life that may be, but the source from which life comes hereafter, and when they are killed there in the water by a shot-gun or a spear the proportion saved by the hunters is probably not one in seven. That was their own estimate: that out of eight shots they would save one seal and seven were lost. If they were killed on the land, those seven would go towards filling out their score.

The same witness also testified as follows:

Q. Have you instructed your agents to comply strictly with the laws and regulations of the Treasury Department?—A. In every case; yes.

Q. Do you kill seals with fire-arms at the islands, or do you prohibit that?—A. No, sir; never; it is not allowed by the act.

Q. Do you kill the female seals or allow them to be killed?—A. Never with our knowledge.

Q. Do you kill any during the month of August for their skins?—A. Not a seal; no.

Q. Do you kill any seals under two years old?—A. Not that we are aware of.

The same witness further testified:

Q. Now, I would like to have your opinion as to the insufficiency of the present measures taken by the Government for the protection of the rookeries, and your opinion as to whether any additional safeguards are necessary for their protection.—A. [Page 376] That the present measures are somewhat insufficient is shown by the fact that for the last three or four years there have been increased depredations annually upon the rookeries. More seals are taken within the limits of the Behring Sea. Formerly seals were only taken outside of Behring Sea, as they passed up to British Columbia, and off the mouth of Puget Sound, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. That was a legitimate place to take them, and one against which no objection could be raised. Seals which come up that way enter through the passages of the Aleutian Islands nearest to the mainland, and it has always been the custom in British Columbia and our sound to intercept the seal and get what they could. Within the last two or three years marauders have followed them through the passages into Behring Sea, and have with guns and spears taken the seals as they lay upon the water, as I stated before, waiting to haul ashore and have their pups. The cows are heavy with pup, and they do not like to go ashore until the last moment, and so they he there in the water, and this affords an opportunity for these marauders to shoot and spear them. This is done by gangs of Indians which they have. They hire gangs of Indians and take them with them. The effects of this shooting is not alone upon the seals which are at that point, but also upon those all around, and it startles them and raises a suspicion in their minds and there is a general feeling of disturbance, such as you notice among cattle when bears are about or something of that kind.

And again:

Q. Now, Mr. Williams, should it be finally ascertained and considered by our Government that under the treaty of cession by which we acquire! Alaska from Russia, and under the laws of nations, the United States does possess and has absolute dominion and jurisdiction over Behring Sea and the waters of Alaska, would you think it would be a wise policy to adhere to and maintain that jurisdiction and dominion complete, or would it be wiser to declare it the high sea in the legal sense?—A. In the light of to-day I should say, keep what you have got.

Q. Hold it as a closed sea?—A. Fisheries within those limits are yet to be developed, and it would seem to be very unwise to open up possible fishery contentions which are very likely to arise by such a course.

Q. You think that it would be, then, the wiser policy, to maintain such jurisdiction and dominion as we have, and to concede to the vessels of other nations such rights as are not inconsistent with the interests which our nation has there and which need protection?—A. Exactly that; the right of transit through the sea whereever they please, but positive protection to seal life.

Q. You do not think it would be wise to grant anything else?—A. No, sir; not at all.

Q. And in no case to surrender the power of policing the sea?—A. No, sir; under no circumstances.

Q. Could that power and jurisdiction be surrendered and yet preserve this seal life on these rookeries and the value of our fisheries that may be developed there?— A. Only with very great risk; because, if that right is surrendered, and thereby the right to police the sea, the depredations that are made upon the seal wherever they may be found, wherever men thought they could carry them out without being taken in the act would be carried out. So it would be difficult in regard to the fisheries. Wherever they could kill these seals they certainly would be there, and it would be impossible to prevent them.

In the statements and statistics relative to the fur-seal fisheries, submitted by C. A. Williams, in 1888, to the Committee of Congress on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, appears the following:

Examination of the earliest records of the fur-seal fishery shows that from the date of man’s recognition of the value of the fur the pursuit of the animal bearing it has been unceasing and relentless. Save in the few instances to be noted hereafter, where governments have interposed for the purpose of protecting seal life, having in view benefits to accrue in the future, the animal has been wantonly slaughtered, with no regard for age, sex, or condition. The mature male, the female heavy with young, the pup, dependent for life on the mother, each and all have been indiscriminately killed or left to die of want. This cruel and useless butchery has resulted in complete extermination of the fur-seal from localities which were once frequented by millions of the species; and, so far as these localities are concerned, has obliterated an industry which a little more enlightened selfishness might have preserved in perpetuity to the great benefit of all ranks of civilized society. Nothing less than stringent laws, with will power to enforce them against all violators, can preserve for man’s benefit the remnant of a race of animals so interesting and so useful.

The most valuable “rookery,” or breeding place, of these animals ever known to man is now in the possession of the United States. How it has been cared for in former years and brought to its present state of value and usefulness will be shown later on. [Page 377] But the matter of its preservation and perpetuation intact is the important question of the moment, and that this question may be considered intelligently the evidence is here presented of the wanton destruction that has befallen these animals when left unprotected by the law to man’s greed and selfishness, which, it is fair to say, is all that could be expected from the unlicensed hunter, whose nature seeks individual and immediate gain, with no regard for a future in which he has no assurance of personal advantage.

The following statistics are gathered from the journals of early navigators, and such commercial records as are now available are submitted:

Kerguelen Land.—An island in southern Indian Ocean, discovered about 1772. The shores of this island were teeming with fur-seal when it first became known. Between the date of its discovery and the year 1800 over 1,200,000 seal skins were taken by the British vessels from the island, and seal life thereon was exterminated.

Crozetts.—The Crozett Islands, in same ocean and not far distant, were also visited and hunted over and the seal life there totally exhausted.

Mas-á-Fuera.—An island in southern Pacific Ocean, latitude 38° 48′ south, longitude 80° 34′ west, came next in order of discovery, and from its shores in a few years were gathered and shipped 1,200,000 fur-seal skins.

Delano, chapter 17, page 306, says of Mas-á-Fuera:

“When the Americans came to this place in 1797 and began to make a business of killing seals, there is no doubt but there were 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of them on the island. I have made an estimate of more than 3,000,000 that have been carried to Canton from thence in the space of seven years. I have carried more than 100,000 myself and have been at the place when there were the people of fourteen ships or vessels on the island at one time killing seals.”

South Shetlands.—In 1821–’23 the South Shetland Islands, a group nearly south from Cape Horn, became known to the seal hunters, and in two years over 320,000 seals were killed and their skins shipped from these islands.

South Georgia.—Later still, seal were found on the island of South Georgia, South Atlantic Ocean, and from this locality were obtained over 1,000,000 of fur-seal, leaving the beaches bare of seal life.

Cape Horn.—From the coasts of South America and about Cape Horn many thousands of fur-seal have been taken, and of the life once so prolific there nothing is now left save such remnants of former herds as shelter on rocks and islets almost inaccessible to the most daring hunter.

This record shows the nearly complete destruction of these valuable animals in southern seas. Properly protected, Kerguelen Land, Mas-á-Fuera, the Shetlands, and South Georgia might have been hives of industry, producing vast Wealth, training-schools for hardy seamen, and furnishing employment for tens of thousands in the world’s markets where skins are dressed, prepared, and distributed. But the localities were no man’s land, and no man cared for them or their products save as through destruction they could be transmitted into a passing profit.

The seal life of to-day available for commercial purposes is centered in three localities:

(1)
The Lobos Islands, situated in the mouth of the river La Plata, owned and controlled by the Uruguay Republic, and by that Government leased to private parties for the sum of $6,000 per annum and some stipulated charges. The annual product in skins is about 12,000. The skins are of rather inferior quality. Insufficient restrictions are placed upon the lessees in regard to the number of skins permitted to be taken annually, consequently there is some waste of life; nevertheless the measure of protection allowed has insured the preservation of the rookery, and will continue so to do.
(2)
Komandorski Couplet, which consists of the islands of Copper and Behring, near the coast of Kamchatka, in that portion of Behring Sea pertaining to Russia. These islands yield about 40,000 skins per annum, of good quality, and are guarded by carefully restrictive rules as to the killing of seal, analogous to the statutes of the United States relative to the same subject. The right to take seals upon them is leased by the Russian Government to an association of American citizens, who also hold the lease of the islands belonging to the United States, and are thus enabled to control and direct the business in fur-seal skins for the common advantage and benefit of all parties in interest. These islands can hardly be said to have been “worked” at all for salted seal-skins prior to the cession of Alaska by Russia to the United States, and the United States Government now profits by the industry to the extent of the duty of 20 per cent, collected on the “dressed skins” returned to this country from the London market. From 1873 to 1887, inclusive, this return has been 121,275 skins.
(3)
The Pribylov group consists of the islands of St. Paul and St. George, and is a Government reservation in that part of Behring Sea ceded to the United States by Russia, together with and a part of Alaska. So exhaustive an account of these islands and their seal life has been given by Mr. H. W. Elliott, special agent of [Page 378] Treasury Department in 1874, and since intimately connected with the Smithsonian Institution, which account has been made a part of Tenth Census report, that it would be intrusive here to attempt to supplement aught, and therefore only generalizations based on said report and such statements of life and procedure on the islands to-day are presented as may be pertinent in this connection.

In an article on fur-seals, which appeared in Land and Water, July 14, 1877, Mr. Henry Lee (Englishman), F. L. S., says:

It has been stated that during a period of fifty years not less than 20,000 tons of sea-elephant’s oil, worth more than £1,000,000, was annually obtained from New Georgia, besides an incalculable number of fur-seal skins, of which we have no statistics. Some idea may be had of their numbers in former years when we learn that on the island of Mas-á-Fuera, on the coast of Chili (an island not 25 miles in circumference), Captain Fanning, of the American ship Betsy, obtained in 1798 a full crop of choice skins and estimated that there were left on the island at least 500,000 seals. Subsequently there were taken from this island little short of a million skins. The seal catching was extensively prosecuted there for many years, the sealing fleet on the coast of Chili alone then numbering thirty vessels. From Desolation Island, also discovered by Cook, and the South Shetlands, discovered by Weddell, the number of skins taken was at least as great; from the latter alone 320,000 were shipped during the two years 1821 and 1822. China was the great market to which they were sent, and there the price for each skin was from $4 to $6. As several thousand tons of shipping, chiefly English and American, were at that time employed in fur-seal catching, the profits of the early traders were enormous.

Does the reader ask what has become of this extensive and highly remunerative southern fur trade? It has been all but annihilated by man’s grasping greed, reckless improvidence, and wanton cruelty. The “woeful want” has come that “woeful waste “has made. Without thought of the future the misguided hunters persistently killed every seal that came within their reach. Old and young, male and female, were indiscriminately slaughtered, in season and out of season, and thousands of little pups not thought worth the trouble of knocking them on the head were left to die of hunger alongside the flayed and gory carcasses of their mothers. Every coast and island known to be the haunt of the seals was visited by ship after ship, and the massacre left unfinished by one gang was continued by the next comers and completed by others until, in consequence of none of the animals being left to breed, their number gradually diminished, so that they were almost, exterminated, only a few stragglers remaining where millions were once found. In some places where formerly they gathered together in such densely packed crowds upon the shore that a boat’s crew could not find room to land till they had dispersed them for a space with oars and boat-hooks, not one fur-seal was to be found even so long ago as 1835.

Dr. H. H. McIntyre, superintendent of the seal fisheries of Alaska for the lessees, testified before the Congressional committee as follows:

Q. What proportion of the seals shot in the water are recovered and the skins taken to market?—A. I think not more than one-fifth of those shot are recovered. Many are badly wounded and escape. We find every year embedded in blubber of animals killed upon the islands large quantities of bullets, shot, and buckshot. Last year my men brought to me as much as a double handful of lead found by them embedded in this way.

* * * * * * *

Q. I want to ask you whether or not the three-year-old seals, or many of them, which should have returned this year did not return because they had been killed?—A. That seems to be the case. The marauding was extensively carried, on in 1885 and 1886, and in previous years, and of course the pups that world have been born from cows that were killed in 1885, or that perished through the loss of their mothers during that year, would have come upon the islands in 1888, and we should have had that additional number from which to make our selection this year. The deficiency this year is attributed to that cause—to the fact that the cows were killed. And I would say further that if cows are killed late in the season, say in August, after the pups are born, the latter are left upon the island deprived of the mother’s care, and of course perish. The effect is the same whether the cows are killed before or after the pups lire dropped. The young perish in either case.

* * * * * * *

Q. It being conceded that the islands are their home, and no on a being interested other than the American and Russian Governments, there would be no special reason why other nations would object?—A. Only the Governments of the United States and England are interested in the Alaskan seal fisheries to any great extent. The United States is interested in it as a producer of raw material, and England as a manufacturer [Page 379] of furs. If these two nations were agreed that seal life should be protected, I think there would be no trouble in fully protecting it. It is a question of quite as much interest to England as to the United States, for she has a large number of skilled workmen and a large amount of capital engaged in this industry.

Professor Elliott, of the Smithsonian Institution, who has spent some time in scientifically examining the seal islands and the habits of the seal, thus describes the killing power of the seal hunter at sea:

His power to destroy them is also augmented by the fact that those seals which are most liable to meet his eye and aim are the female fur-seals, which, heavy with young, are here slowly hearing the land, soundly sleeping at sea by intervals, 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.

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 shotguns and buckshot, rifles and balls, and last, but most deadly and destructive of all, he can spread the “gill-net” in favorable weather.

With gill-nets “underrun” by a fleet of sealers in Behring Sea, across these converging paths of the fur-seal, anywhere from 10 to 100 miles southerly from the Pribylov group, I 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.

Open those waters of Behring Sea to unchecked pelagic sealing, then a fleet of hundreds 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. If the seal is shot dead instantly, killed instantly, then it can be picked up in most every case; but not one seal in ten fired at by the most skillful marine hunters is so shot, and nearly every seal in this ten 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, making the difficulty of taking accurate aim exceedingly great and the result of clean killing very slender.

Mr. George B. Tingle, United States Treasury agent in charge of the fur-seal islands from April, 1885, until August, 1886, testified as follows:

Q. It is Mr. MeIntyre’s opinion that they have not only not increased, but have decreased?—A. There has been a slight diminution of seals, probably.

Q. To what do you attribute that?—A. I think there have been more seals killed in the sea than ever before by marauders. I estimated that they secured 30,000 skins in 1887, and in order to secure that number of skins they would have had to kill half a million seals, while this company in taking 100,000 on shore destroyed only 31 seals. Those were killed by accident. Some times a young seal, or one not intended to be killed, pops up his head and gets a blow unintentionally.

Q. The waste of seal life was only 53 in 1887?—A. Yes, sir; in securing 100,000 skins, while these marauders did not kill last year less than 500,000. The logs of marauding schooners have fallen into my hands, and they have convinced me that they do not secure more than one seal out of every ten that they mortally wound and kill, for the reason that the seals sink very quickly in the water. Allowing one out of ten, there would be 300,000 that they would kill in getting 30,000 skins. Two hundred thousand of those killed would be females having 200,000 pups on shore. Those pups would die by reason of the death of their mothers, which added to the 300,000, makes half a million destroyed. I am inclined to think, because the seals show they are not increasing, or rather that they are at a stand-still, that more than 300,000 are killed by marauders.

Q. You are of the opinion, then, that the marauders are killing more seals than the [Page 380] Alaska Commercial Company?—A. At least five or six times as many as the Alaska Commercial Company are killing.

Q. What will be the effect if more) stringent measures are not taken to protect the seals by the Government?—A. If more stringent measures are not taken, it is only a question of time when these seals will be driven ultimately to seek some other home where they will not be molested. They will not continue to be harassed; and, if this marauding is continued, they will, in my opinion, either be gradually exterminated or will leave the islands permanently and land at some other place. They may go on the Russian side.

Q. Will marauding increase if the Government does not take steps to prevent it?—A. I think so.

Q. Is it practicable to prevent it?—A. Yes, sir. If we did not allow these cheeky, persistent, insolent, British Columbia seamen to go there and defy the United States and its authorities, it would very soon be stopped. When our revenue cutters seize the British schooners, the captains are very insolent and defiant, and claim that they have a strong government at their backs. I am now referring particularly to Captain Warner, of the Dolphin. He said in 1887, when captured, “We have got a strong government at our backs, and we will fight you on this question.” “Very well,” says Captain Shepherd, “I have got a strong government at my back, and I am going to do my duty. My government sends me to protect these seal rookeries. I am charged by this administration to enforce the law, and I will seize all marauders.”

* * * * * * *

Q. You were speaking a while ago in regard to the amount of seal life destroyed by marauders, and that a captain had given the number of seals destroyed. Have you seen any of the log books of those vessels?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you state what you remember with regard to the number of seals lost or captured by those vessels?—A. I remember reading the log-book of the Angel Dolly, which I captured. There was an entry in that log-book that read as follows: “Issued to-day to my boats, three hundred rounds of ammunition. At night they came in with the ammunition all expended, and one seal skin.”

Q. They had shot three hundred rounds of ammunition?—A. Yes, sir. Another entry I saw was: “Seven seals shot from the deck, but only secured one.” All lost but one. Another entry: “It is very discouraging to issue a large quantity of ammunition to your boats, and have so few seals returned.” An entry was made in another place, where he gave it as his opinion that he did not secure one seal-skin out of every fifty seals wounded and killed.

Q. Have you seen seal-skins upon the island that had been shot?—A. Very often. We gather handfuls of shot every season.

Q. Does that injure the market value of the skins?—A. Undoubtedly. Any hole is an injury to the skin.

Extract from Mr. Tingle’s report to the Treasury Department.

I am now convinced from what I gather, in questioning the men belonging to captured schooners and from reading the logs of the vessels, that not more than one seal in ten killed and mortally wounded is landed on the boats and skinned; thus you will see the wanton destruction of seal life without any benefit whatever. I think 30,000 skins taken this year by the marauders is a low estimate on this basis; 300,000 fur-seals were killed to secure that number, or three times as many as the Alaska Commercial Company are allowed by law to kill. You can readily see that this great slaughter of seals will, in a few years, make it impossible for 100,000 skins to be taken on the islands by the lessees. I earnestly hope more vigorous measures will be adopted by the Government in dealing with these destructive law-breakers.

William Gavitt, an agent of the United States Treasury, gave this testimony.

Q. I understand you to say—for instance, taking 1887 or 1888—that the 100,000 seals taken upon the islands, and the 40,000 taken and killed in the water, if no greater amount was taken, that there would be no perceptible diminution in the number of seal; that by the natural increase the company might take 40,000 more than now, if it were not for the depredations?—A. I had in mind an average between 25,000 killed in 1888 and about 40,000 in 1887.

Q. What I want to know is this: Is it your opinion that the number taken in the sea, when they are on the way from the islands to the feeding grounds, have a tendency to demoralize the seal and to break up their habits, their confidence, etc.?—A. It would be likely to do it. They are very easily frightened, and the discharge of fire-arms has a tendency to frighten them away.

By Mr. Macdonald:

Q. No seals are killed by the company in this way?—A. No, sir; they are all killed on the islands with clubs.

[Page 381]

Jacob H. Moulton, an agent of the Government, testified:

Q. Do you think it essential to the preservation of seal life to protect the seal in the waters of Alaska and the Pacific?—A. There is no doubt about it.

Q. The herd could be exterminated without taking them upon the islands?—A. They could be exterminated by a system of marauding in the Behring Sea, but I think the number killed along the British Columbia coast did not affect the number we were killing on the islands at that time, because there was apparently an increase during these years. There had been for five or six years up to that time. Since that time in Behring Sea the seal have been gradually decreasing.

Q. You think their decrease is attributable to unlawful hunting in Behring Sea?—A. There is no doubt of that.

Q. As a result of your observation there, could you suggest any better method of preserving seal life in Behring Sea than that now adopted?—A. Not unless they furnished more revenue vessels and men-of-war.

Q. So as to patrol the sea closely?—A. I think so. I do not think the seals scatter much through any great distance during the summer season, although very late in the summer the smaller seals arrive. The females, after giving birth to their young, scatter out in Behring Sea for food. We know they leave the islands to go into the water, because they are coming and going. They suckle their young the same as most animals.

Q. Lawless hunters kill everything they find, I believe, females or not?—A. Yes, sir.

Q. When a female is nursing her young and goes out for food and is killed or wounded, that results also in the death of her young?—A. Yes, sir. As her young does not go into the water, it does not do anything for some time, and can not swim and has to be taught.

Q. The seals are born upon those islands?—A. Yes, sir; they come there for that purpose. They come there expressly to breed, because if they dropped their young in the water the pup would drown.

Q. Do you think the value of the seals justifies the policy that the Government pursues for their preservation and protection?—A. Yes, sir; I do.

Q. And under a rigidly enforced system protecting seal life in the waters of these seas, do you think the herd could be materially increased?—A. I think it would. I think there is no doubt but what it would.

Edward Shields, of Vancouver Island, a sailor on board the British schooner Caroline, engaged in seal hunting in Behring Sea in 1886, testified, after the vessel was seized, that the 686 seals taken during the whole time they were cruising in the open sea were chiefly females.

Mr. H. A. Glidden, Treasury agent, recalled, testified as follows:

Q. From the number of skins taken you estimated the number killed?—A. That season I know there were thirty-five vessels in the sea, and we captured fifteen vessels. The catches of the vessels were published in the papers when they arrived home and averaged from 1,000 to 2,500 skins each.

Q. You estimate, then, that during the season 40,000 skins were taken? In killing them in the open sea they do not recover every seal they kill?—A. No, sir; I do not think they do. In fact, I know they do not, judging from the amount of shot and lead taken from the seals that are afterwards killed on St. Paul and St. George Islands.

Q. So that the destruction of the seals in the open sea would be much in excess of the number taken, probably?—A. I have no very accurate information on which to base an opinion, but I should judge that they lost from 40 to 60 per cent, of them. I saw a good many shot from the boats as I was approaching, and think they lost two or three out of five or six that I saw them shoot at.

Q. From your observations have you any recommendations or suggestions to offer, the adoption of which would lead, to the better preservation of seal life in these waters than is now provided by law?—A. There is a difference of opinion as to the construction of the law. I firmly believe that the Government should either protect the islands and water in the eastern half of Behring Sea or throw up their interest there. If the Behring Sea is to be regarded as open for vessels to go in and capture seals in the water, they would be exterminated in a short time.

  1. The report referred to in this memorandum is H. R. Report 3883, Fiftieth Congress second session.