Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, December 1, 1890

Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Blaine.

[Extract.]

British Legation,
Washington, D. C. , March 9, 1890.

Dear Mr. Blaine: I have the pleasure to send you herewith the memorandum prepared by Mr. Tupper on the seal fishery question, to which he has appended a note by Mr. Dawson, an eminent Canadian official.

Believe me, etc,

Julian Pauncefote.

[Inclosure 1.]

Synopsis of reply to Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, of March 1, 1890.

[March 1, 1890]

	Page.
Mr. Blaine’s reference to indiscriminate slaughter—note in point	385
Extraordinary productiveness of seals	385
Rookeries in South Pacific withheld extensive raids for years	385
None of Pacific fisheries ever equaled those of the Pribylov group	385
History of South Shetland Islands and wholesale destruction thereon	385
Destruction at Mas-á-Fuera	385
Chapel of opinion that 100,000 a year could have been taken from the Shetlands under proper restrictions	385
Pups in thousands found dead on beaches	385
Incorrect statement in report of the House of Representatives as to rookeries of the world	386
Russian memorandum of July 25, 1888, enumerating rookeries	386
Cape of Good Hope rookeries, and the protection of same	380
Destruction on these rookeries formerly—plague—revival of rockeries under regulations.
Seals shot—statement that 1 only in 7 is shot—contradicted by Canadian hunters	386
Mr. Elliott on unerring aim of Indian hunters	386
Practice of hunters	386
Statement of facts prior to and at time lease of islands to Alaska Commercial Company (1870)—lessees permitted to take 100,000 a year	386
Slaughter under Russian rule	386
Table showing catch 1817–’60	387
Undiminished condition of islands, 1868, though 6,000,000 taken 1841–’70	387
50,000 seals killed on the island of St. George in 1868	387
150,000 killed on the island of St. Paul during the same year	388
General onslaught—300,000 killed in 1869	388
Notwithstanding the above destruction, 100,000 a year might, Mr. Boutwell stated, he killed with protection in and around the islands	388
Mr. Dall of same opinion in 1870 (100,000 a year may safely be killed)	388
Tenure of lease allowed 100,000 a year—any male seal of one year or over—natives to kill pups for food	388
Opinion of committee of House of Representatives that seals require protection during migration, and for 50 miles southeast of rookeries whilst searching for food, which differs from Mr. Blaine’s proposition	388
Mr. Glidden’s testimony—merely his opinions, not based on practical knowledge	388
Mr. Taylor’s testimony	388
On islands in 1881—as to seals intelligence and hours for feeding.
No bulls remain on islands all summer—writers and agents contradict this	388
Mr. Taylor admits that killing occurs inshore, where the sea is black with seals.	389
This witness, while stating that young pups are lost, does not instance finding dead pups on the islands—his admission that seals have not diminished.
Chief damage due to insufficient protection of islands	389
Mr. Williams’s testimony	389
No personal knowledge as to the seal—refers to want of protection on islands and danger of seals being taken when passing Aleutian Islands—increased depredations upon the rookeries for last 3 or 4 years.
Mr. MeIntyre, Government agent, afterwards a superintendent of the company	390
Thinks one-fifth only of seals shot are recovered—found seals with shot—attributes deficiency of seals in 1888 to the fact that cows were killed—attempts to reduce estimate, as to number, of Elliott and Dall by one-half—large decrease in 1887, 1888—decrease since 1882, especially since 1884—considerable percentage of killed made up of males—40,000 skins in 1886 and 1887 taken in Behring Sea—this merely a surmise—80 or 90 per cent, of catch females—positive testimony of this witness on matters of opinion or hearsay—his statement that islands unmolested from 1870 to 1885 incorrect, as well as statement as to decrease from 1882 and 1884.
Mr. Elliott’s testimony	390, 391
Report regarding him by Mr. Morris in 1879—Mr. Elliott’s evidence before Congressional committee goes further than his previous writings—his statement regarding loss of wounded seals contradicted.
Mr. Tingle’s testimony	391, 392
On islands 1885 to 1886—slight diminution probably—calculation of catch from entry in log of Angel Dolly—extraordinary log and extraordinary crew of Angel Dolly—Mr. Tingle contradicts Mr. McIntyre—increase since Mr. Elliott’s count, 1876, 2,137,000—criticism of Mr. Elliott’s statement re decrease, and points out that Mr. Elliott was not on the islands for fourteen years.
Mr. W. Gavitt’s testimony	392, 393
On St. George Island, 1887, 1888—bad character of employés of company—no means of agents knowing of unlawful killing—no agent can say when seals are captured off the islands—lessees buy seals killed at Oonalaska—agents drawing two salaries, one from Government and one from the company.
Mr. Moulton’s testimony, 1877, 1885	393
Increase in number of seals to 1882—decrease to 1885—opinion and evidence as to catch of mothers.
Edward Shields, sailor, as to catch of 686 seals, chiefly females—custom of hunters to class all skins of seals under those of mature seals as females	393
Mr. Glidden, recalled, based his estimate of 40,000 catch from newspapers	393
Inexperience of witnesses	393
No cross-examination of witnesses	393
The opinions of witnesses	393
Their opinions are substantially that females nursing go out for food—when away from islands are shot—greater part of catch in Behring Sea made up of females—many of the seals shot are lost.
Issue joined on these by Canadian Government. Seals can be protected and increased in number by (1) proper patrol of islands, (2) killing of pups prohibited, (3) reduction of pups to be killed on islands, (4) limit of months for killing, (5) prevention of killing by Alerts at the Aleutian Islands	393
Difference between House of Representatives committee and Mr. Blaine as to when injury began to islands—1886 or 1885	394
Important to show how insignificant catch of Canadian sealers compared with depredations successfully survived by islands	394
Depredations on islands and catch outside islands, 1870	394
1872	394
1874	394
1875	394
1876	394
1877	394
1878	394
1879	394
1880	394
1881	395
1882	395
1883	395
1884	395
1885	395
1886	395
None of the depredations were committed by Canadian sealers	396
Mr. Blaine refers to increase and profitable pursuit of industry down to 1886	396
Present value and condition of islands better than ever	396
Comparative offers for lease of islands 1870–1890	396
Enormous rental and profits received by the United States from the islands	396
Receipts and expenses—$9,525,283 received by the United States in excess of purchase price of Alaska	396
Marvelous increase of seals in spite of depredations referred to	396
1869, 1,728,000; 1874, 4,700,000; 1884, increasing; 1885, no change, countless numbers: 1887, still on the increase; 1888, no change
With total of 4,700,000 in 1874, Lieutenant Maynard of opinion 112,000 young male seals can be safely killed annually	397
Reference to Maynard’s and Bryant’s report as to habits of seals supports Canadian contention	397
Canadian Government contends few females in calf ever taken in sea	397
More females in a herd than males	397
Canadian contention supported by following facts: (1) Seals on rookeries still increasing; (2) old bulls go into water at end of rutting season and do not return to islands—Clark on males driving others off; (3) two-thirds of males not permitted to land at rookeries—occasional visits to land—yearlings arrive middle July—non-breeding male seals equal breeding seals (1,500,000)—bachelors not long on shore—females do not feed until young go into water	397, 398
Bulk of seals confined to island until ice surrounds islands	398
Never out until departure (see Mr. McIntyre’s report, p. 48)	398
Bulls prevent mothers taking to water	398
Rookeries full to July 25, and remain in limits	398
No seals sick or dying on islands	399
Canadian contention supported by report on International Fisheries Exhibition (London, 1883)—nature has imposed a limit to their destruction	399
Mr. Elliott, in 1874, agrees with the above contention—the equilibrium of life regulated	399
Seals get their fish in North Pacific	399
Mr. McIntyre’s report as to habits of seals, 1869	399
Seals take no food until their departure from islands in November	400
The duty of Government to patrol islands—Mr. Tingle in 1886 asks for cutters to patrol islands—Mr. Morgan recommends launches—Mr. Wardman alludes to inadequacy of protection to islands	400
Mr. Williams points out insufficiency of protection to islands	400
Mr. Taylor says, in 1881, the difficulty arises from the want of better protection—Mr. Glidden agrees	400, 401
Mr. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treasury, in 1870, conceived the duty of the Government was to efficiently guard “in and around the islands”	401, 402
The interests on behalf of a monopoly cause divergent views respecting the protection of seals	402
Mr. Bryant shows the value 01 the lease in conferring a monopoly—Mr. Moore illustrates this	402
When the company took less than 100,000 seals it did so because the market did not demand them	402
Mr. McIntyre shows that 800,000 were once thrown into the sea as worthless, when the market was glutted	403
Killer-whales and sharks the enemies of seals	403
Man’s assaults at sea small in comparison to the natural enemies of the seal	403
Canadian system of hunting	403, 404
Mr. Elliott shows that if temporary diminution does occur on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, the missing seals are probably on the Russian islands	404

[Inclosure 2.]

Mr. Tupper to Sir Julian Pauncefote.

The Arlington,
Washington , March 8, 1890.

Dear Sir Julian: I have the honor to inclose herewith a memorandum prepared by me in reply to the memorandum sent to you by Mr. Blaine, and which you handed to me upon the 3d instant.

I send you a copy for yourself, one for Mr. Blaine, and one for M. de Struvé, the Russian ambassador.

I also have the honor to forward herewith a valuable paper upon the subject, prepared hurriedly by the assistant director of the geological survey of Canada, George Dawson, D. S., F. G. S., F. R. S. C., F. R. M. S.

I may add that Dr. Dawson was in charge of the Yukon expedition in 1887.

Copies of his paper are also inclosed for Mr. Blaine and M. de Struvé.

I am, etc.,

Charles H. Tupper.

[Inclosure 3.]

Memorandum on Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, dated March 1, 1890.

[undated]

In the appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter of March 1, on the 3d page, is an extract from a report to the House of Representatives, as follows:

“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.”

While it is admitted that indiscriminate slaughters upon the rookeries are most injurious to the maintenance of seal life, it is denied that in the history of the fur-seal industry any instance can be found where a rookery has ever been destroyed, depleted, or even injured by the killing of seals at sea only.

Mr. Elliott, who is quoted by Mr. Blaine, admits that the rookeries in the South Pacific withstood attacks of the most extensive and destructive character for twenty years, when young and old males and females were indiscriminately knocked on the head upon their breeding grounds; and Mr. Clark (H. R. Report 3883, 50th Cong., 2d sess., p. 91) tells us that in 1820 thirty vessels on the islands (South Shetlands), took in a few weeks 250,000 skins, while thousands were killed and lost. In 1821 and 1822 320,000 skins were taken and 150,000 young seals destroyed. None of these islands, however, were ever frequented by the millions which have been found on the Pribylov group for over twenty years.

“These islands constitute the most valuable rookery or breeding place of these animals ever known to man.” (H. R. Report 3883, 50th Cong., pp. 111, 112, Hon. C. A. Williams’s written statement.)

Professor Elliott (in his evidence, p. 142^*) mentions one person who, when with him at the islands, estimated the number at 16,000,000.

The report of the Congressional committee on the Alaska seal fisheries states that indiscriminate slaughter in the early part of the nineteenth century caused a desertion of the rookeries, and it goes on to say that in 1820 and 1821 300,000 were taken in an indiscriminate fashion at the South Shetlands, and, at the end of the second year, the species had there been almost exterminated.

The Hon. C. A. Williams, whose evidence is cited and relied upon by Mr. Blaine, supports this view (see p. 111, H. R. Report No. 3883, 50th Cong.); but, as a matter of fact, while seals are admittedly not so plentiful in South Shetlands as heretofore, owing to wholesale destruction on the breeding grounds, so prolific are they that, in 1872, 8,000 skins of “the choicest and richest quality were obtained from these islands. In the next season 15,000 skins were taken there, and in 1874 10,000 skins, and from 1870 to 1880 the sealing fleet brought home 92,756 fur-seal skins from the South Shetlands and the vicinity of Cape Horn and Terre del Fuego.” (A. Howard Clark, p. 402, Commission of Fisheries, Fishery Industries United States, sec. 5, vol. ii, 1887.) In this regard, it may here be noted that this extract refers only to the catch of sealers which fitted out at New London, Conn., and does not embrace the operations of sealers from other countries.

Mr. Clark describes the manner in which the seals at Mas-á-Fuera were attacked. At page 407 of the article above cited he points out that between the years 1793 and 1807 3,500,000 seals were obtained from this island by English and American vessels, and in 1824 the island was “almost abandoned by these animals.” Mr. Clark also shows that in 1797 there were only 2,000,000 on the islands, and yet in seven years more than 3,000,000 were carried from the islands to Canton, China.

Mention is made, too, of fourteen ships’ crews on the island at one time killing seals. At page 408 mention is made of from twelve to fifteen crews on shore at the same time (American and English), and that “there were constantly more or less of ships’ crews stationed here for the purpose of taking fur-seals’ skins”—from 1793 to 1807.

It is contended by the Canadian Government that a reference to the history of this island is entirely beside the contention on the part of the United States that it is necessary to keep sealing craft hundreds of miles away from rookeries in order to preserve the seal life on the breeding grounds.

The cause of injury is the same in all the cases mentioned, and Mr. Chapel, in the appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter, now under consideration, at page 5 well says:

“It is stated that at the Shetlands alone [which never equaled the present condition of the Pribylov group, mentioned by Hon. C. A. Williams, already quoted] 100,000 per annum might have been obtained and the rookeries preserved if taken under proper restrictions; but, in the eagerness of men, old and young male and female seals were killed, and little pups a few days old, deprived of their mothers, died by thousands on the beaches—[it may here be observed that not a case of dead pups was ever found on the Pribylov group, so far as the reports on the islands show]—carcasses and bones strewed on the shores.”

This statement, cited in the United States’ case, is direct authority for the Canadian contention. It illustrates three important points:

(1) That indiscriminate Slaughter on the breeding grounds is injurious and in time destructive.

(2) That when the mothers are killed, the young pups, dying in consequence, are found on the island.

(3) That regulations of the number to be killed on the island, with careful supervision, will maintain the rookeries independently of prohibiting sealing in the waters.

The report of the House of Representatives states:

“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.”

The statement is incorrect. Important omissions occur, since the cases left out, when examined, show that, notwithstanding all of the extraordinary and indiscriminate slaughter of past years, it is possible, by careful supervision of the rookeries alone, and of the seals while on land, to revive, restore, and maintain lucrative rookeries.

Quoting from an extract from a Russian memorandum respecting the hunting of seals, communicated by M. de Staël to the Marquis of Salisbury, and dated July 25, 1888, it is found that other rookeries are by no means deserted. The extract reads as follows:

“The places where fur-seal hunting is carried on may be divided in two distinct groups. The first group would comprise Pribylov Islands, Behring Sea, 100,000 killed in 1885; Commander Islands (Behring and Copper Islands, 45,000; Seal Islands, Okhotsk Sea, 4,000); total, 149,000.

“The second group, the sea near the coast of Victoria, 20,000; Lobos Islands, 15,000; islands near Cape Horn and the South Polar Sea, 10,000; islands belonging to Japan, 7,000; Cape of Good Hope, 5,000; total, 57,000.”

An important omission is the case of Cape of Good Hope, in reference to which the committee of the House of Representatives, previous to their report, had been informed (see H. R. Report 3883, 50th Cong., 2d sess., p. 114) that from the Cape of Good Hope islands, under protection of the Cape Government, a yearly supply of 5,000 to 8,000 skins is derived, and that from Japan, it was stated, sometimes 15,000 and sometimes 5,000 a year are received. These islands are now rigidly protected by the governments of the countries to which they belong; but neither does the Government of the Cape, of Japan, nor of Uruguay, in case of the Lobos Islands, consider it necessary to demand the restriction of the pursuit of seals in the open sea.

United States’ vessels have visited the islands off the Cape of Good Hope from 1800 to 1835, and have taken on some days 500 to 700 skins, securing several thousands of skins annually. In 1830 Captain Gurdon L. Allyn, of Gale’s Ferry, Conn., mentions finding a thousand carcasses of seals at one of the islands, the skins of which had been taken. He lauded and took seals in considerable numbers. He was again on a sealing voyage on this coast in 1834, and shot seals on the rookeries.

In 1828 a plague visited these rookeries, and 500,000 seals perished during the plague (Clark in the report of the U. S. Com. of Fish and Fisheries, 1887, sec. v, vol. ii, pp. 415, 416), and yet to-day we find a renewal of the industry by regulations applied solely to the rookeries, and exclusive of the deep sea operations.

Upon page 7 of the appendix now under review, the report of the Congressional committee on Alaska seal fisheries refers to testimony of United States Government agents regarding the number of seals shot and not secured, and a calculation is referred to, to the effect that one in every seven is alone secured by the hunter who follows seals on the sea. The experience of Canadian hunters is directly opposed to this theory, and shows that a loss of 6 per centum is all that ever takes place, while Indian hunters seldom lose one. Solemn declarations to this effect have been made under the Canadian statute relating to extrajudicial oaths.

In confirmation of this, reference may be had to Mr. H. W. Elliott, in the United States Fish Commissioner’s report, vol. ii, sec. v, p. 489, where he says:

“The Aleuts fire at the otter at 1,000 yards range, and that when hit in the head nine times out of ten the shot is fatal.”

In the case of hunting the seals, the practice of the white hunters, all expert shots, is to paddle up to the seal while asleep in the water, shoot it in the head, and at once haul it into the boat; while the Indians approach it in a canoe and spear the seal, the head of the spear separating itself and being attached to a rope by which the seal is dragged into the canoe.

Reference is made on page 4 of the appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to the limitations in the lease of 1870. These conditions, it is contended, are most inconsistent with the present view of the United States regarding the danger to the preservation of seal life. With respect to this the following facts should be carefully noted:

(1) Up to 1862 no law in Russia existed prohibiting or forbidding the killing of seals, and in that year an inoperative law was promulgated. (See Russian memorandum, Mr. de Staël to Lord Salisbury, 25 July, 1888.)

Mr. McIntyre, a special agent of the Treasury Department (H. R. Ex. Doc. 36, 41st Cong., 2d. sess., page 18), records the catch taken from the Pribylov Islands under the Russian-American company as follows:

Table showing the number of fur-seals taken by the Russians on St. Paul and St. George Islands from 1817 to 1860.

Year.	Number of seals.	Year.	Number of seals.
1817	60,188	1840	*8,000
1818	59,856	1841	*8,000
1819	52,225	1842	10,370
1820	50,220	1843	11,240
1821	44,995	1844	11,924
1822	36,469	1845	13,637
1823	29,873	1846	15,070
1824	25,400	1847	17,703
1825	30,100	1848	14,650
1826	23,250	1849	21,450
1827	19,700	1850	6,770
1828	23,228	1851	6,564
1829	20,811	1852	6,725
1830	18,034	1853	18,035
1831	16,034	1854	26,146
1832	16,446	1855	8,585
1833	16,412	1856	23,550
1834	15,751	1857	21,082
1835	6,580	1858	31,810
1836	6,590	1859	22,000
1837	6,802	1860	21,590
1838	*6,000	Total in forty-four years	765,687
1839	*6,000

* Approximative.

Referring to this table, Mr. McIntyre says:

“The number of seals on St. Paul Island is variously estimated at from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000, including all classes, and on St. George at about one-third as many. I think it may be safely stated that there are not less than 4,000,000 on the two islands. The table from the records of the late Russian-American Company, appended to this report, exhibits the number of seals taken from each island from 1817 to 1837, and from 1842 to 1860. Previously to 1817, says the late Bishop Veniamnoff, no records were kept. From the same authority we learn that during the first few years following the discovery of the islands in 1781 over 100,000 skins were annually obtained; but this, it seems, was too large a number, for the decrease in the yearly return was constant until 1842, when they had become nearly extinct, and in the next decade the whole number secured was 129,178, being in 1852 but 6,564; but from 1842, under judicious management, there appears to have been an increase, and in 1858 31,810 were taken, which was the largest catch in any one year, until 1867, when, as I am informed, some 80,000 or 100,000 were secured, under the supposition that the Territory would soon be transferred to the United States. ‘The decrease from 1817 to 1838’ says Bishop Veniamnoff, ‘averaged about one-eighth of the whole number annually, so that in 1834 there were produced on both islands, instead of 60,000 to 80,000, only 15,751, and in 1837, 6,802.’ From the most careful computation I have been able to make, I am of the opinion that no more than 100,000—75,000 on St. Paul and 25,000 from St. George—can be annually taken without incurring the risk of again diminishing the yearly production, as we observe the Russians to have done in former years.”

See also Wick, chief of land service, Russian-American telegraph expedition, who reported in 1868 on undiminished condition of the seal fishery (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 177, 40th Cong., 2d sess.).

Six million seals had been taken from this sea between 1841 and 1870. (Vide Dall on Alaska and its resources, 1870, p. 492.)

(2) In 1868 Hutchinson and Morgan, the promoters and founders of the Alaska Commercial Company, and afterwards lessees of the islands, saw that, unless restrictions were imposed upon the islands, there would be ruin to the rookeries (H. W. Elliott, Our Artie Province,” pp. 247, 248); consequently, by act of Congress approved July 27, 1808, the killing of fur-seals on the islands was prohibited (W. H. McIntyre, special agent Treasury Department, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Cong., 2d sess., p. 12). Notwithstanding the act to which reference has been made, 50,000 were killed on St. George and 150,000 on St. Paul by traders in 1858 (Dall, p. 496), 100,000 in 1869 (W. H. McIntyre, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Cong., p. 13).

Mr. Wardman, an agent of the United States Treasury at the Seal Islands, in his “Trip to Alaska,” published 1884, on page 92, says:

“General onslaught, threatening extermination, by American vessels during the interregnum of departure of Russian and installation of United States Governments took place.”

And the same officer, in his sworn testimony given before the Congressional committee, stated that 300,000 were killed in 1869.

(3) Notwithstanding this condition of affairs, Secretary Boutwell reported in 1870 (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 129, p. 2, 41st Cong., 2d sess.) that “if the animals are protected, it is probable that about 100,000 skins may be taken each year without diminishing the supply,” and that “great care was necessary for the preservation of the seal fisheries upon the islands of St. Paul and St. George.”

So Dall, in his book on Alaska (1870, p. 496), in referring to slaughter by Russians, believed that 100,000 seals could safely be killed annually under regulations, and Mr. Blaine, in his dispatch to Sir Julian Pauncefote of the 27th of January, says:

“In the course of a few years of intelligent and interesting experiment the number that could be safely slaughtered was fixed at 100,000 per annum.”

Mr. Boutwell, as will be seen on reference to his report, was opposed to a lease, and remarked that it was necessary in any event to maintain in and around the islands an enlarged naval force for the protection of the same. This report was followed by the legislation under which a lease was executed in May, 1870.

(4) In drawing the terms of the lease and regulations concerning the islands the United States permitted, in the then state of affairs, the lessees to take 100,000 seals a year for twenty years, and they were permitted to make up this number from any male seals of one year of age or over.

(5) The natives were allowed to destroy on the islands pup seals of either sex for food, numbering in some years 5,000.

(6) The 100,000 could be killed by the lessees in the months of June, July, September, and October.

Upon page 8 of the appendix to Mr. Blaine’s note the opinion of the committee of House of Representatives is given to the effect that the protection of the islands is not enough, but that the seals must be protected in their annual migrations to and from the rookeries, and for 50 miles southeast of the rookeries to their feeding grounds. This is a far different proposal from that submitted by the Secretary of State, since it does not embrace the whole of the Behring Sea, but locates the feeding grounds, so called, within 50 miles of the islands.

The other points, on page 8 of the appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote of the 3d instant, need hardly be dealt with in discussing the necessity for a close season, reference being made therein to the sorting of the herd for killing on land so as not to kill the females. This is admittedly wise, since the killing is done June 14, when the pups are being dropped. The rest of page 8 of Mr. Blaine’s memorandum raises the point that a seal is not a fish.

So on page 9 testimony is cited touching the necessity for not killing females on the rookeries, when wholesale slaughter of 100,000 a year goes on, and this is not here controverted. The opinion of Mr. Glidden, whose experience was confined to the land operations, regarding the proportion of seals recovered when shot in deep sea, can not be of weight. It is, therefore, unnecessary to dwell upon the fact that he is a Government employé, giving his views in favor of his Government’s contention in 1888, after the seizures of 1885 had taken place. This officer was on St. George Island from the 25th of May to August in 188i only. His opinion that an “open policy” would not preserve the value of the seal fisheries, and that it is necessary to protect the seals in Behring Sea, as well as on the islands, is not based upon much practical knowledge. He further stated that not much hunting was done in the Pacific.

Hon. Mr. Williams, at page 107 of evidence before the Congressional committee, says:

“Three miles beyond land (in Pacific) you do not see them; where they go no one knows.”

The British Columbian sealers and the record of their catches in the Pacific for twenty years weakens the standing of these witnesses as experts.

Mr. Taylor, another witness, ascribes to the fish of Behring Sea a very high order of intelligence. He deposes that in Behring Sea the seals eat a great many fish every twenty-four hours, and as “the fish have become well aware of the fact that there is a good many seals on the seal islands, they keep far out to sea.” He stands alone in testifying so positively to what can, at best, be a matter for conjecture, and he fails to show he had the slightest means of ascertaining this knowledge. He further stated that the bulls remain on the islands all summer.

This is contradicted by writers and other United States’ witnesses, as will be seen hereafter. It is, therefore, evident that this gentleman was testifying simply to his own peculiar theories regarding seal life upon very limited experience. He says, at one place, that while the cows are out (and they go, he tells us, 10 to 15 miles and even further) the sealers catch them; while, at another place he states:

“The sea is black with them around the islands, where they pick up a good many seal, and there is where the hilling of cows occurs—when they go ashore.”

So that, evidently, he may have seen cows killed when around the islands, the only place at which he apparently could observe them, and he has merely conjectured the distance that they go from land and the number actually shot in deep water.

This witness “thinks there is some damage done in killing and shooting of the cows and leaving so many young without their mothers.” There would be less doubt respecting the cows being shot or lost if it was satisfactorily shown that large numbers of young pups were found dead in the rookeries. The witness, if able, would have certainly pointed to this. The reverse, however, is the fact; and, with the exception of one witness before the Congressional committee, whose evidence will be examined again, not an agent of the Government nor a writer ever stated that pups were found dead in any numbers on the islands from loss of mothers; the fact being that mothers never go far from their young until the young are well able to care for themselves. This witness, notwithstanding his allusion to supposed damage by the killing of mothers, the killing of cows by vessels in shore—where the sea is black with them—had to admit, “the number of seal, in the aggregate, is not apparently diminished.” His knowledge is confined to one year (1881), and we have better and undisputed testimony that long after this a great increase had taken place—an increase of millions. Mr. Taylor, it should be observed, however, gave other testimony than that quoted by Mr. Blaine. He said that—

“These predatory vessels are generally there (in Behring Sea) in the spring of the year when the cows are going to the island to breed * * * most of the seals that are killed by these marauding vessels are cows with young.”

He estimates the number taken in 1881 at from 5,000 to 8,000.

“These vessels will take occasion to hang around the islands, and when there is a heavy fog to go on the rookeries very often.”

The chief damage, according to Mr. Taylor, is not the killing of mothers out at sea when their young are on shore depending upon the return of their mothers, as is contended, but it is due, he says, to the insufficient protection of the island. This can, as will be pointed out, be remedied if the suggestions of Government agents are acted upon in the line of better police guarding of the rookeries.

Mr. Williams’s testimony is next referred to on page 10 of the appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter. This gentleman was engaged in the whaling business for forty years (page 73 of evidence before Congressional committee). As regards fur-seals, his knowledge is not based upon experience, but “from reading and from conversation with my captains” (p. 73). He was called by request of attorney for the Alaska Commercial Company, of which Mr. Williams was a stockholder.

No importance, it is submitted, can be attached to his testimony regarding the habits and nature of the seal after such a frank confession.

His evidence that females in pup mass together in the sea before landing may therefore be dismissed, since he does not produce any authority for a statement which is contradicted by expert testimony. Neither is his statement that hunters admit that out of eight shots they would save one seal only correct.

On pages 11 and 12 of the appendix Mr. Williams naturally gives his views for holding the control over seal life in Behring Sea. It is not denied that every lessee of the Pribylov group would agree entirely with him in this. It may be remarked that he does not share the theory of the United States that the chief danger lies in killing the mothers when out in the deep sea for food, having left their nurslings on shore.

At pages 10, 11, and 12 of the appendix Mr. Williams is quoted to show that the danger to the females lies in the journey through the Aleutian Islands, with young, to the breeding grounds. On page 90 of his evidence before the committee, he illustrates the ineffective means of protecting the rookeries by stating:

“Last fall a schooner landed at one of the rookeries and killed 17 cows and bulls right on the breeding rookeries.”

Again, at page 106 he says:

“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.

“A revenue-cutter goes upon the grounds and then is ordered north for inspection, or for relief of a whaling crew, or something of that kind, and they are gone pretty much the whole time of the sealing season, and there appears to be insufficiency of the method of protection.”

On page 108 he says:

“They shoot them as they find them. * * * A vessel can approach within less than half a mile or a quarter of a mile of 1he island and not be seen (on account of fog), and can send her boats on the beaches and get off fifty or a hundred skins before the inhabitants can find it out.”

Evidently Mr. Williams does not consider the shooting of females far from land is much indulged in, as he insists that the damage is done inshore, where no police protection is enforced.

The history of the rookeries, given on pages 12, 13, and 14 of the appendix, has been dealt with already in this paper.

On pages 14 and 15 of the appendix an article on fur-seals, from Land and Water, written in 1877 by a Mr. Lee, is referred to.

He merely alludes to the indiscriminate slaughter which was practiced on the rookeries, which no one defends or justifies.

Mr. McIntyre, superintendent of the seal fisheries of Alaska for the lessees, is then brought forward by Mr. Blaine.

This gentleman went to the island as a Government agent to inspect the operations of the company. His reports were favorable to and highly eulogistic of the company, and they were immediately followed by his resignation as a Government official and his appointment to a lucrative position under the company,

His testimony is naturally more in favor of the company and of the Government’s contention, which is so directly in the interest of the company, than the testimony of any other witness.

He thinks only one-fifth of the seals shot are recovered, and his reason is that he has found seals with bullets in their blubbers on the islands. He attributes a deficiency in the number of seals in 1888 to the fact that cows were killed. He mentions that if cows are killed in August, and their young deprived of their mother’s care, the young perish. The young perish also if the mother is killed before they are born. In this way he endeavors to represent such a practice obtains, but it is to be borne in mind that he does not go so far as to say that pups are found dead on the islands in any number. When this officer was reporting on the operations of the company, and before the present contention was raised, he gave a glowing account of the increasing numbers of seals at the islands, as will be shown; but at page 116 of the evidence before the Congressional inquiry he labors to reduce the estimates of both Elliott and Dall by one-third or one-half. He concludes that the number of seals has largely decreased in the last two years (1887 and 1888). The company, however, killed their 100,000 in each of these years. The Government had the discretion to reduce the limit. The Government did not deem it necessary to do so. The number, this witness says, was increasing until 1882, and then other parties began the killing of seals, “especially since 1884.” All this told upon the rookeries, and, he added, “a considerable percentage” of the killing was made up of male seals (evidence, p. 117). Mr. McIntyre attempted to count the catch in 1886 and in 1887, and stated that 40,000 skins a year were taken, nearly all in Behring Sea water, and in a few instances by raids on the land. How he obtained this information is not shown. From his position on the island of St. Paul during all that time his statement is obviously a mere surmise.

He could only know personally of the catch from raids which were made on the island in 1886 and 1887, and which were due to ineffective protection of the islands. After telling us that a large percentage of the catch of the marauders was made up of adult males, he entirely forgets this, as we find him saying (at p. 118):

“A majority of the skins taken by marauders, in fact 80 or 90 per cent., are from females.”

It is submitted that this witness, whose interest on behalf of the company (the lessees) is shown in his confession that it was at times necessary, in order to control the price in the markets, for the company to take less than 100,000 seals (evidence, p. 121) has not strengthened his testimony on the main point by speaking positively to the following, which could only have been known to him by hearsay:

(a) Russia destroyed marauding vessels.

(b) A British vessel in 1887 took 450 seals in Behring Sea, secreted them on a small island, left them, and returned to the sea for more.

(c) Marauders kill 100,000 each season.

(d) It is not true that vessels are seized when pursuing legitimate business.

He goes on to say that for the first fifteen years of the company’s lease, viz, from 1870 to 1885, the lessees were unmolested (p. 129), which statement has been shown to be incorrect. He observed that since 1882, and especially since 1884, other parties have been destroying seals, “reducing the equilibrium of the sexes.” As will be submitted hereafter, he has been contradicted in regard to this by expert writers, historians, travelers, and agents of the United States Government.

Mr. H. W. Elliott, whose experience is limited to 1872, 1874, and 1876, when, as Mr. McIntyre says, no injury was done by marauders, is next referred to by Mr. Blaine (page 16 of appendix). He is referred to as a member of the Smithsonian Institution; he was also a special agent of the Treasury. The following are extracts taken from a “report upon the customs districts, public service, and resources of Alaska Territory,” by W. L. Morris, special agent of the Treasury Department, 1879:

“In the November number of Harper’s Magazine, 1877, appears an article entitled ‘Ten years’ acquaintance with Alaska, 1867–’77.’ The authorship is correctly ascribed to Mr. Henry W. Elliott, now connected with the Smithsonian Institution in sub official capacity. This gentleman was formerly a special agent of the Treasury Department, under a special act of Congress, approved April 22, 1874, appointed for the purpose of ascertaining at that time the condition of the seal fisheries in Alaska, the haunts and habits of the seal, the preservation and extension of the fisheries as a source of revenue to the United States, with like information respecting the fur-bearing animals of Alaska generally, the statistics of the fur trade and the condition of the people or natives, especially those upon whom the successful prosecution of the fisheries and fur trade is dependent.

“This report of Mr. Elliott will be further noticed hereafter, and, upon the threshold of criticising anything he has written upon Alaska, occasion is here taken to give him full credit for his valuable contribution in regard to fur-seals. It is to be regarded as authority and well conceived. The views of Mr. Elliott, however, in reference to other matters of moment in the Territory are so diametrically opposed and antagonistic to my own that I feel constrained to review some of his statements, glittering generalities, and the wholesale method with which he brushes out of existence with his facile pen and ready artist’s brush anything of any essence of value, light, shade, or shadow in the broad expanse of Alaska that does not conform precisely to the rule of investigation and recital laid down by himself, and which contradicts his repeated assurances that outside of the seal islands and the immediate dependencies of the Alaska Commercial Company there is nothing in Alaska.

“This magazine article bears a sort of semi-official indorsement, its authority is not denied, and with this explanation for using the name of Mr. Elliott in connection therewith a few of its crudities and nudities will be noticed.

“the sense-keeper of alaska.

“So little is known about Alaska that whenever anything comes up in Congress relating to it information is sought wherever it can readily be found. The ‘informant’ is ever on hand, with his work on fur seals comfortably tucked underneath his left arm, to impart all the knowledge extant about the country, ‘for he knows more about Alaska than any man living.’

“A decade has passed since we acquired this Territory, and for a decade it has afforded employment and subsistence for its present sense-keeper; but the next decade is warming into national existence, and it is about time this bubble was pricked and the bladder not quite so much inflated.

“I am fully aware of all the consequences to be dreaded, the responsibility assumed, when rash enough to dispute the heretofore self-established authority from the Arctic Ocean to the Portland Canal.

“This man seems to be the natural foe of Alaska, prosecuting and persecuting her with the brush of the pencil and the pen of an expert whenever and wherever he can get an audience, and I attribute the present forlorn condition of the Territory to-day more to his ignorance and misrepresentation than to all other causes combined. He is accused of being the paid creature and hired tool of the Alaska Commercial Company, and belonging to them body and soul. I have made diligent inquiry, and ascertain he is not in their employ, and furthermore they repudiate the ownership. They should not be held responsible for the indiscreet utterings of the sense-keeper, notwithstanding the charge of ownership might cause him to be more readily listened to.

“Doubtless when they have been attacked through the columns of the press they have employed this individual, who is unquestionably possessed with the cacoethes scribendi to reply to unjustifiable onslaughts, and paid him for it, as they would any other penny-liner who makes literature and writing for the press his profession.”

His evidence in 1888 is open advocacy of the United States’ contention. His writings and reports prior to the dispute will be referred to, and it will be submitted that his statements and experiences before 1888 hardly support his later theories. His statement on page 17 of the appendix, that wounded seals swim away to perish at a point never to be seen again is contradicted by the last witness, Mr. McIntyre, who picked handfuls of buckshot, etc., out of seals clubbed on the islands. His theory of the difficulty of shooting seals is contrary to the known practice of the hunters to creep upon the seal as it lies floating in the calm waters of the sea, and by his own testimony, before quoted, of the unerring aim of the Indian hunters.

Mr. Tingle, an agent of the Treasury, in charge of the fur-seal islands from April, 1885, to August, 1886, is quoted by Mr. Blaine (appendix, p. 17).

Mr. Tingle is not able to go so far as Mr. McIntyre, although he was at the islands in 1886 (evidence, p. 153), but he stated “there has been a slight diminution of seals, probably.” He estimated 30,000 were taken by marauders, and to do this he guesses that 500,000 were killed. This gentleman, as an agent of the Treasury, was confined to the islands during his tenure of office (evidence, p. 153).

He bases his contention on the log of a marauding schooner which fell into his hands. This log was, it may be remarked, not produced, and no excuse is given for withholding it. He produced what he said was a copy. As his opinions are based upon this curious statement, his testimony can hardly be seriously pressed. He testified to insolence of sealers when seized, though he does not appear to have been present at any of the seizures. The log book, it should be observed, is said to have belonged to the Angel Dolly.

This is not the name of a Canadian sealer, and it may here be stated that no Canadian sealer has ever been found within the 3-mile limit. The operations on the schooner Angel Dolly must have been rather expensive, and they do not corroborate the allegation that large catches were made, since three hundred rounds of ammunition (Mr. Tingle said) were wasted for the capture of one seal. Another supposed entry in the log is most extraordinary for the captain of a sealer under any circumstances to make. The statement referred to is as follows:

“It is very discouraging to issue a large quantity of ammunition to your boats and have so few seals returned.”

There is not a magistrate’s court in the country that would listen to this oral testimony as to the contents of a log. A reference to this pretended log—a copy of a portion thereof only being produced by Mr. McIntyre (p. 332 of evidence)—shows that the captain had an exceptionally bad crew. The captain described them in the following terms: “The hardest set of hunters in Behring Sea;” he “never will be caught with such a crowd again; they are all a set of curs.” The captain added, however, that if “we only had hunters we would be going home now with 1,500 skins at the very least;” and, from the log, it would appear that he had no regular hunters on board. It is worthy of remark that the statements made by Mr. Tingle respecting the entries in this alleged log are not confirmed by an inspection of the transcript Mr. McIntyre produces. (On p. 332 of evidence.)

Mr. Tingle contradicts Mr. McIntyre regarding the number of seals on the island. He states (p. 162, evidence) that there had been an increase of seals since Mr. Elliott’s count in 1876 of 2,137,500. He expressed natural astonishment (p. 163) at the statement of Mr. Elliott regarding a decrease. He says:

“I am at a loss to know how Mr. Elliott gets his information, as he has not been on the islands for fourteen years.”

Pushed by the chairman of the committee by the following question, viz, “It is Mr. McIntyre’s opinion that they have not only not increased, but have decreased,” the witness in reply stated that “there has been a slight diminution of seals, probably.”

The next authority quoted by the United States is William Gavitt, a special agent of the Treasury at St. George Island from May, 1887, to August, 1888. The evidence of this witness is not referred to at any length by Mr. Blaine. The witness testified before the Congressional committee, however, that the employés of the company (the lessees) did not respect the laws of God or man. He named particularly Mr. Webster, Doctor Luty, John Kirk, and John Hall (p. 180). And he added that the rules of the company were violated (p. 181). The committee bandied this witness rather roughly, Mr. Jeffries saying to him (p. 188):

“You had better understand what you are talking about.”

On page 191 he rebukes other officers of the Treasury who had testified positively to matters without the means of knowledge. The witness was asked:

“What was the result of your observations and opinions that you deem reliable in respect to the unlawful killing of seal annually?”

The witness answered that—

“We have no means of knowing that.”

He was then pressed in this way:

“It is a mere matter of estimate, of course, but I wish it based upon as reliable information as you have.”

When the witness said—

“I think the first season the revenue-cutter captured 15,000 stolen skins (p. 191); where they were stolen, whether in the sea or out of it, no agent can truthfully say.”

He also showed that the lessees of the islands were not so particular as other agents pretend, when he tells us (p. 191) that they bought from the natives at Oonalaska 5,000 seals killed by them there (p. 196). The United States puts forward this officer as a reliable witness, and it is therefore but fair to attach importance to a statement which weakens the force of the ex parte statement and opinion of the special agents sent from time to time to the islands, and who have now been brought forward on behalf of the United States as witnesses in support of a case which concerns not merely the Government, but most directly the lessees. The witness states that one of the employés of the company told him that when a Government officer came there and got along with the company it was profitable. Upon being asked by the committee before whom he was giving evidence to explain, he replied that—

“A man could draw two salaries, like Mr. Falkner and Judge Glidden—one from the Government and one from the company.” (P. 191.)

Mr. Moulton’s evidence is next presented (p. 19 of appendix). He was a Government agent from 1877 to 1885. He said that there was an apparent increase during the first five years, i. e., to 1882, then a decrease to 1885. (Evidence, p. 255.) In this statement he has been contradicted by official reports, as will be shown.

The witness admits, however, that female seals, after giving birth to their young, soatter out in Behring Sea; and he is of opinion that lawless hunters kill all they find, and that they find mothers away from their nurslings. No special reason for this opinion is given, however.

A sailor, Edward Shields, of Vancouver, formerly on the sealing schooner Caroline, is said to have testified, where and when it is not stated (p. 20 of appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter), that in 1886 out of 686 seals taken by the Caroline the seals were chiefly females. Upon this it may be said that it is the custom among hunters to class all seals the skins of which are the size or near the size of the female as “females,” for their guidance as to the quality of skins in the catch. It may also be remarked that it does not appear that these females were in milk, and this is always known when skinning the seal. “Dry cows” are caught, as has been admitted, and taking this evidence, given ex parte as it was, it is at best, if true, an exceptional case in a very small catch.

Mr. Glidden was recalled by the committee, and explained that his estimate of 40,000 skins was based on newspaper reports of the catch of the sealers. He was, of course, unable to show how many of these were taken near the Aleutian Islands, in the North Pacific, or on the west coast of British Columbia, or in the Puget Sound, but he evidently credits the whole estimated catch to Behring Sea. Consequently he was of opinion that sealing in Behring Sea should be ended, to lead to the better preservation of seal life.

It is to be observed that not one of these witnesses, whose opinions are relied upon both as to the catch, the habits, and sex of the seal in deep water and the method of shooting, etc., has had any experience as a hunter or with hunters. They were not experts. They were sent to the islands to see that the lessees performed their obligations as covenanted in the lease. The experience of most of them was limited to a few years’ residence on the seal islands, associated with and under the natural influence of a company admittedly a monopoly and desirous of restricting the catch so as to control the market of the world as far as seals are concerned.

None of the witnesses were, moreover, submitted to a cross-examination, and they were to a large extent led by the examiners in the questions put to them. The only facts that were possibly within their knowledge relate to seal life on the islands, to the mode of killing, and to the times when killed there, and to their habits when in and upon the rookeries.

The opinions of the gentlemen given before the Congressional committee in 1888 for the most part, though sometimes contradictory, are in favor of the under-mentioned theories:

(1) That the female seals while nursing their young go great distances in search of food.

(2) That when out a great distance female seals are shot, and the pups on shore are lost for want of their mothers’ care.

(3) That the greater part of the catch in Behring Sea is made up of female seals.

(4) That the destruction of the seals when hunted on the sea is great in consequence of many wounded seals being lost.

All of these opinions are put forward in support of the main proposition of the United States, viz, that since 1882, and especially since 1884, the number of seals usually collecting on the breeding ground has constantly diminished.

The Canadian Government joins issue upon this, and the counter assertion is made that there has been no appreciable diminution of seals frequenting the rookeries, and it is claimed that the seals are more numerous and more valuable upon the rookeries to-day than ever in their previous history; that this is the fact notwithstanding the rookeries have been for twenty years practically unprotected from frequent and most dangerous raids upon the actual breeding grounds and many other injuries, all within the control of the Government of the United States, as hereinafter specified:

The Canadian Government asserts that the seal life upon the islands can not only be maintained, but greatly increased, by the adoption on the part of the United States of—

• First. An efficient means for the patrol and protection of the islands.
• Second. By the prohibition of the killing of pups by the natives for food.
• Third. By reducing the number of yearling seals to be killed by the lessees.
• Fourth. By not permitting any killing of seals upon the islands, except in July, August, and September.
• Fifth. By preventing the Aleuts from killing seals on their migration through the Aleutian Islands on their way to and from the breeding grounds.

In Mr. Blaine’s dispatch to Sir Julian Pauncefort, of the 27th of January, 1890, he proceeds upon a somewhat different ground than the evidence already reviewed, in order to show the necessity for prohibition of sealing in the wafers of Behring Sea.

The ex parte evidence before the Congressional committee satisfied that committee that “the present number of seals on St. Paul and St. George Islands has materially diminished during the last two or three years,” viz., from 1836 to 1889, while Mr. McIntyre, whose evidence is so much relied upon by the United States, dates the decrease” from 1882.

Mr. Blaine, however, adopts the view that the rookeries were in prime condition and undiminished until 1885, when, as he says, Canadian sealers made their advent into Behring Sea and the injury began.

It is therefore important to point out that the operations of the Canadian sealers were absolutely harmless compared with the numerous depredations upon the islands for tire last century, which, however, have not yet begun to affect the value and number of seals on these wonderful rookeries.

Already evidence has been cited in this paper establishing the fact that extraordinary slaughter occurred prior to 1870, and that after all this, when the total number of seals on St. Paul and St. George Islands was admittedly less than, now, it was deemed safe to permit 100,000 male seals of one year or over to be killed annually for twenty years, etc.

In 1870 Collector Phelps, of San Francisco, reported:

“I am assured the entire number taken south of the islands of St. George and St. Paul will aggregate, say, 10,000 to 20,000 per annum.” (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 35, 44th Cong., 1st sess.)

The Acting Secretary of the Treasury Department, in September, 1870, gave permission to the company to use fire-arms for protection of the islands against marauders. (H. R., 44th Cong., 1st sess., Ex. Doc. 83, p. 30.)

In 1872 Collector Phelps to Mr. Secretary Boutwell reports expedition fitting out in Australia and Victoria for sealing in Behring Sea with the object of capturing seals on their migrations to and from St. Paul and St. George Islands. Secretary Boutwell did not consider it expedient to interfere with these operations if they were carried on 3 miles from land.

In 1874 Mr. Secretary Sawyer, writing to Mr. H. W. Elliott, referred to British vessels taking fur-seals in United States waters and to the seals becoming more numerous.

In 1875 Mr. William McIntyre, an assistant agent of the Treasury, describes having been told that the crew of the schooner Cygnet, as she lay at anchor in Zapadnee Bay in 1874, were shooting seals from the deck, skinning them, and throwing the carcasses overboard, which was alarming the seals and driving them from their breeding grounds. And he said:

“I wished to give the captain of the vessel timely warning before, proceeding to harsh measures. I had armed the natives with the intention of repelling by force any attempts to Mil seal on the rookeries or within rifle-shot of the shore, if the crews still persisted in doing so after the receipt of my letter to the captain.”

He described the operations of the Cygnet under the cliff near the rookery, which alarmed the seals so that they left the rookery in large numbers. (Ex. Doc. No. 83, p. 124, 44th Cong., 1st sess.)

This vessel is again reported by Special Agent Bryant in May 12, 1875. (Ex. Doc. 83, p. 125, 44th Cong., 1st sess.)

From 1874 to 1878 Mr. F. J. Morgan, attorney for the Alaska Company, was on the islands during the years 1868, 1869, and from 1874 to 1878. He speaks of several raids upon the islands in his time, and he says the whole question is one or more cruisers to protect the rookeries on the islands. (H. R. Ex. Doc. 3883, 50th Cong., pp. 58, 71, 109.)

In 1875 the evidence of Darius Lyman contains the following information. (Report, Committee on Ways and Means, House report No. 623, 44th Cong., 1st sess.)

Answering Mr. Burchand as to what he knew about the seizure of the San Diego, Mr. Lyman replied:

“There was a seizure made of the San Diego, a schooner, near St. Paul Island on the 27th of July last (1875), on board of which were 1,660 fur seal skins. The San Diego was sent down to California, and arrived there in August.”

On page 73 of the same report, Mr. Elliott, in answer to Mr. Chapin, says that the skins taken from the San Diego were from Otter Island, one of the leased group.

In 1880 Mr. McIntyre reported the estimated annual slaughter of 5,000 pregnant females on the British Columbia coast.

From reports of Special Agent Ottis and Captain Bailey respecting the people of Alaska and their condition (Senate Ex. Doc. 132, 46th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 4, p. 4). Captain Bailey says:

“During April and May all the coast Indians, from the mouth of the straits of Fuca to the north end of Prince of Wales Island, find profitable employment in taking fur-seals which seem to be making the passage along the coast to the north, being probably a portion of the vast number that finally congregate at the Seal Island later in the season. I am informed by the Indians that most of the seals taken along this coast are females, and their skins find a market at the various Hudson Bay posts.”

On page 34 of the same report, in a list of the vessels boarded, he gives the United States schooner Loleta, Dexter master, seized at the seal islands by Special Agent Ottis.

In a report by Special Commissioner Ivan Petroff in the year 1880, he says:

“As these seals pass up and down the coast as far as the Straits of Fuca and the month of Columbia River, quite a number of them are secured by hunters, who shoot or spear them as they find them asleep at sea. Also small vessels are fitted out in San Francisco, which regularly cruise in these waters for the purpose alone of shooting sleeping seal.” (H. R. Ex. Doe. No. 40, 46th Cong., 3d sess., vol. 18, p. 65.)

At page 61 of the same report this officer speaks of the natives securing 1,200 to 1,400 young fur-seals in transitu through Oonalga Pass.

Special Agent D. B. Taylor, in 1881, states that the company was powerless to protect the islands, but that if a harbor was built and a steam-launch stationed at each island they could be protected. He states that vessels go to the islands and kill 10,000 to 15,000 a year, and that one hundred vessels have been prowling about these islands for twenty years. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 3883, 50th Cong., p. 58.)

Mr. Treasury Agent H. A. Glidden, who was on the islands from 1832 to 1885, shows that the trouble is at the islands. The hunters go there on moonlight nights. He stated that he took possession of a vessel while the crew were on shore killing seals. The Government, he goes on to say, did not keep vessels there in his time, and he recommended that a revenue cutter should be kept there to guard the islands. (H. R. Ex. Doc. 3883, 50th Cong., p. 28.)

Prior to the decision of the United States to arrest vessels outside the 3-mile limit in Behring Sea experience had shown that the police force at the islands could not protect them from raids. This is illustrated in a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. W. McCulloch, dated the 24th of February, 1885, wherein he recommends that $25,000 be obtained for the protection of seals and the enforcement of the laws.

“The seal fisheries”—

He states—

“yield annually to the Government a revenue of about $300,000. The islands on which the seals are taken are protected from incursions of marauding vessels alone through the cruising of the revenue-cutters. Last year the officers of the Corwin seized a schooner engaged in taking seals unlawfully. Without the use of cutters the fur-seal industry has no protection.”

The letter closes by asking for $25,000 “in the estimates for next year.” (H. R. Ex. Doc. 252, 48th Cong., 2d sess., vol. 29.)

September 1, 1884, the Hamburgh schooner Adele was seized for violation of section 1956, Revised Statutes United States.

In 1884 Captain McLean, master of the schooner Mary Ellen, was in Behring Sea from the 8th of July to the 22d of August. He took 2,007 seals, and was not interfered with. (See his declaration under act for the suppression of extrajudicial and voluntary oaths.)

Mr. George Wardman, an officer of the United States Government, was at the seal islands May, 1885. He was also there in 1879, and, in addition to his evidence before the Congressional committee, he has reported to his Government and has written a book upon Alaska and Behring Sea, “Wardman’s Trip to Alaska,” published in 1884. At page 116 of this is given an account of the raiding of Otter Islands and the consequent request for a revenue-marine guard at that place during the sealing season, which was granted.

In 1885 Captain McLean again visited Behring Sea in the Mary Ellen. He was there from the 4th of July to the 3d of September. He took 2,300 seals, and was not interfered with.

Captain Healy, in reporting on the cruise of the Corwin in the Behring Sea, in 1885, when speaking of the seal fisheries, said:

“During the year quite a number of vessels have raided Alaskan waters for seals and other fur-bearing animals.” (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 153, 49th Cong., 1st sess., vol. 32.)

In 1886 the governor of Alaska, in his report for that year (p. 43), states that an indiscriminate slaughter was carried on previous to the seizures of 1885.

In 1886 Special Agent Tingle, to Secretary Fairchild, congratulated the Government on the arrest of the San Diego, which he called “an old offender.” “This,” Mr. Tingle remarked, “will do much to break up marauding business around the islands.” He further urged the Government to keep a cutter about the islands from July 1 to the 1st of November.

The above references, it is submitted, establish conclusively the defenseless condition of the islands from the depredations of the marauders or poachers upon the rookeries (not one being a Canadian) ever since the islands came into the possession of the United States.

Mr. Blaine, in his dispatch of the 27th of January, 1890, remarks that—

“Proceeding by a close obedience to the laws of nature, and rigidly limiting the number to be annually slaughtered, the Government succeeded in increasing the total number of seals and adding correspondingly and largely to the value of the fisheries.”

And in the same dispatch he speaks of the profitable pursuit of this business down to the year 1886.

To show that at the present time the value of the islands is greater and their condition is better than ever, it is only necessary to observe that while the late lessees paid to the Government of the United States an annual rental of 50,000 in addition to $2.62½ per skin for the total number taken, the offers, when the islands were put up for competition in 1890, were enormously exceeded, as will be seen on reference to a schedule of the proposals submitted to the United States’ Treasury Department in response to the advertisements of the Treasury inviting offers for the privileges, dated December 24, 1889, and February 20, 1890.

Upon reference to the evidence before the Congressional committee (H. R. No. 3883, 50th Cong., 2d sess.), it will be seen that “the Government now, without any care or risk, gets $317,000 a year for the lease.” And at page 99 of the same report it is stated that the annual income from skins to the Government was $512,736, and that in sixteen years the United States’ Government received from the Alaskan fur-seal industry $8,203,776.

It is further stated that the Government had then already been repaid the capital sum paid for the whole Territory of Alaska, and more, with “her many varied, and, as I believe, incomparably great national resources, to represent the investment of capital first made.”

“fifth.—the receipts and expenses of the government on account of said contract.

“The total amount paid by the lessees on account of said contract up to June 30, 1888, inclusive, was $5,597,100. The total amount expended by the Government during the same period was about $250,000 for salaries and traveling expenses of agents of the Treasury Department at the seal islands, and about $150,000 for the revenue-cutters cruising Alaskan waters.

“To the amount already received direct from the company should be added the sum received by the United States from customs duties on Alaskan dressed seal-skins imported from Europe, amounting to $3,426,000, to which should be added the sum of $502,000 customs duties on imported seal-skins taken by said company under its contract with Russia, making an aggregate amount received by the Government on account of this industry of $9,525,233, being $2,325,283 in excess of the amount paid to Russia for the Territory.” (Report of Congress, 1888.)

It can now be shown how marvelous has been the increase of seals on these islands, notwithstanding the absence of the protection to the rookeries and 3-mile limit, whether around the islands or at the different passes in the Aleutian range, where the breeding seals in pup go twice a year.

In 1869 Special Agent Bryant estimated the number of seals to be as follows (41st Cong., 3d sess., No. 32, Senate, p. 7):

On St. Paul Island	1,152,000
On St. George Island	576,000
Total	1,728,000

In 1874 Mr. Elliott, after examination, estimated the number of seals to be:

On St. Paul Island	3,030,000
On St. George Island	163,420
Total	3,193,420

Exclusive of non breeding seals, and adding those to the estimate of Mr. Elliott just quoted, he himself said that the total would reach 4,700,000.

In 1884, long after the period when McIntyre stated that the seals were decreasing—as he said since 1882—Mr. Wardman, when writing from the islands, tells us—

“The number of seals is steadily increasing.” (“A Trip to Alaska,” p. 93.)

Mr. H. A. Glidden, an agent of the Treasury from 1882 to the 8th of June, 1885, an authority quoted by Mr. Blaine in support of the United Stated contention, told the Congressional committee in 1888, in replying to the question, “What do you say about the increase or diminution of the number of seals on the rookeries of St. Paul and St. George?”

“I did not notice any change. * * * I could not see any particular difference. They come and have their young and go away. The period of gestation is eleven months, and then they come back in the spring following. They are there during the season in countless numbers.” (Evidence before Congressional committee, p. 27.)

Mr. George R. Tingle, a special agent of the Treasury, gave his evidence before the same committee, and he is put forward by Mr. Blaine in support of the United States’ contention. (Appendix to Mr. Blaine’s letter to Sir Julian Pauncefote, March 1, p. 17.)

Confirming Mr. Glidden’s opinion, as above quoted, Mr. Tingle said:

“From Mr. Elliott’s statement I understand that there are no more seals now than there were in 1872. I am at a loss to know how Mr. Elliott got his information, as he had not been on the islands for fourteen years.”

The same Mr. Tingle, in 1887, reported to Secretary Fairchild that—

“He found the lines of occupancy extending beyond those of last year, and the cows quite as densely packed on the ground on most of the rookeries, whilst on two rookeries there is some falling off. It is certain, however, this vast number of animals, so valuable to the Government, are still on the increase. The condition of all the rookeries could not be better.” (Appendix to report, Congressional committee, 1888, p. 359.)

In a report of the Alaska Commercial Company (December 13, 1887), it is stated that Mr. George R. Tingle, the agent appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, substantially confirms Mr. Elliott in his view referred to above, excepting that, upon a careful survey by himself in 1886, he estimated that the fur-seals upon the two islands had increased in number about 2,000,000 up to that time. Mr. Tingle’s estimate for 1886 is 6,537,750 (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 31, 50th Cong., 1st sess.), and in December the Alaska Commercial Company, in their report, said that the seals were on the increase.

The latest definite information appearing in the United States documents regarding the condition of the rookeries is contained in the report of Mr. Tingle, who, as special agent of the Treasury Department, wrote from St. Paul Island, Alaska, July 31; 1888, as follows:

“I am happy to be able to report that, although late landing, the breeding rookeries are filled out to the lines of measurement heretofore made, and some of them much beyond these lines, showing conclusively that seal life is not being depleted, but is fully up to the estimates given in my report of 1887.”

From the above United States officials it is clear that, with only partial protection on the islands, the seals have increased in an amazing degree. These islands, containing in 1874 the largest number of seals ever found in the history of sealing at any place, contain to-day a more astounding number.

When the number was less than half of what it is at present, Lieut. Washburn Maynard, of the U. S. Navy, was instructed to make an investigation into the condition of the fur trade of the Territory of Alaska, and in 1874 he reported that 112,000 young male seals had been annually killed in each year, from 1870 to 1874, on the islands comprising the Pribylov group, and he did not think that this diminished the numbers. Lieutenant Maynard’s report (44th Cong., 1st sess., H. R. No. 43), as well as that of Mr. Bryant in 1869 (Ex. Doc. No. 32, 41st Cong., 2d sees.), largely supports the contention of the Canadian Government respecting the productiveness of the seal and their habits during the breeding season.

It is not denied that seals enter Behring Sea for the purpose of resorting to the islands to propagate their species, and because the immense herd is chiefly confined to the islands for this purpose during the breeding season it is that the seals have so constantly increased.

Notwithstanding the lax efforts on the part of the United States to guard or patrol the breeding islands, the difficulty of approaching the rough coasts thereof, the prevalence of fogs and other causes have, in a large degree, prevented too destructive or too numerous raids being made upon the rookeries.

The Canadian Government contends that while seals in calf are taken on and off the coasts of British Columbia and California, and also during their migrations near the Aleutian Islands by Indians and Aleuts, the bulk of the seals taken in the open sea of that part of the Pacific Ocean called Behring Sea are bulls both old and young—but chiefly young—and that most of the cows when taken are known as “dry cows,” i. e., cows that have nursed and weaned their young, or cows that are barren, or those that have lost pups from natural causes.

It must also be noted that there are more females than males in a herd of seals. (“Trip to Alaska,” Wardman, p. 94.)

The position taken by the Canadian Government is supported:

(1) By the history of the rookeries as above given and the great increase shown despite the constant killing and raids upon the islands during the past century.

(2) By the fact that the old bulls that have been able to hold their position on the rookeries go into the water at the end of the rutting season, between 1st and 10th of August. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Cong., 1st sess., app., p. 132.)

Mr. Clark, on the Antarctic seal fisheries, in “The Fisheries and Fishery Industries in the United States,” 1887, pp. 423, 424, says:

“In very stormy weather, when they (the seals) are driven into the sea, they are forced to betake themselves to the sheltered side of the island, hence the men find that stormy weather pays them best. Two or three old males, termed “beach masters,” hold a beach to themselves and cover it with cows, but allow no other males to haul up. The males fight furiously, and one man told me that he had seen an old male take up a younger one in his teeth and throw him into the air. The males show fight when whipped, and are with great difficulty driven into the sea.

“They are sometimes treated with horrible brutality. The females give birth to the young soon after their arrival.

“After leaving the rookeries the bulls do not return to them again that season.”

(3) By the fact that two-thirds of all the males that are born are never permitted to land upon the same ground with the females. This large band of bachelors, when it visits land, herds miles away from the breeding grounds. (H. W. Elliott, H. R. No. 3883, 50th Cong., p. 112.)

They are driven off into the water. (Clark’s article on Antarctic seal fishery industries of the United States, sec. v, vol. ii, 1887, p. 431.)

Young seals are prevented from landing on rookeries. (Ex. Doc. 83, 44th Cong., 1st sess., p. 93; see also Elliott, H. R., 44th Cong., 1st sess., Ex. Doc. No. 83.)

Yearling seals arrive about the middle of July accompanied by a few of the mature males, remaining a greater part of the time in the water. (H. H. McIntyre, 41st Cong., 2d sess., H. R. No. 36, p. 14; also H. R. Ex. Doc. 43, 1st sess., 44th Cong., p. 4.)

Mr. Samuel Falkner, assistant Treasury agent, writing from St. George Island August 1, 1873, to Mr. Bryant, Treasury agent for the seal islands, says:

“I notice on some of the rookeries the passage ways, formerly occupied by young bachelors in hauling upon the background, are completely blocked up by females, thus preventing the young seals from landing, and, as the greater portion of this island shore is composed of high cliffs, it renders it difficult for any great number, to effect a landing. There are also numerous old males constantly guarding the shore line, which makes it still more difficult for the young ones to work their way on the background.”

Then, again, it must be remembered that the non-breeding seals, consisting of all the yearlings and all the males under six or seven years of age, nearly equal in number the breeding seals, and Mr. Elliott estimated, when there were 4,700,000 seals on the island, 1,500,000 of this number were non-breeding seals. (Elliott, app. to H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, 44th Cong., 1st sess., p. 79.)

On thick, foggy days bachelor seals numbering over a million will often haul out on different hauling grounds, and on the recurrence of fine weather disappear into the water. (Elliott, p. 144, H. R., 44th Cong., 1st sess., Ex Doc. 83.)

The young bachelors do not remain on shore long at a time. (P. 4, 44th Cong., 1st sess., Ex. Doc. No. 43.) They are so numerous, however, that thousands can be seen upon the hauling grounds, as all of them are never either on shore or in the water at the same time. Ibid., p. 44.) By the fact that the cows remain with their pups and suckle them until all have left.

They do not go on the rookeries until three years of age. (H. R. Ex. Doc, 44th Cong., 1st sess., No. 43, p. 4.)

They do not go far from shore until the young are reared. Peron says that both parent elephant seals stay with the young without feeding at all until the young are six or seven weeks old, and that then the old ones conduct the young to the water. (Clark’s article on Antarctic seals, p. 424.)

The young are suckled by the females for some time and then left to themselves, lying on the beach, where they seem to grow fat without further feeding. (“The Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the United States,” sec. v, vol. ii, 1887, p. 424.) For this reason those that are pupped in June are off in the water in August.

So, also, on the African coast the seal remains until the young can take care of themselves. (Ibid., p. 416.)

The bulk of the seals are confined to the islands until ice surrounds them. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 45, 44th Cong., 1st sess., p. 2.)

The seals never leave their places, seldom sleep, and never eat anything from May to August, when they take to the water, but, it is believed, take no food until their final departure in November. (H. H. McIntyre, H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Cong., 2d sess., vol. 5.) Mr. Elliott says, “perhaps she feeds.” (P. 130 his report on Alaska, 1874, H. R. No. 83 Ex. Doc, 44th Cong.)

The bulls, while on the island, prevent the mothers taking to the water. (Marine mammals, by Captain Shannon, “United States Revenue Marine,” 1874, p. 152.)

From 10th to 25th of July the rookeries are fuller than at any other time during the season, as the pups have all been horn, and all the bulls, cows, and pups remain within their limits. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 43, 44th Cong., 1st sess., p. 3.)

It has been shown that when in the rookeries mothers were destroyed, the young were found dead, etc., but Professor Elliott, in reference to the Pribylov Islands, says:

“With the exception of those animals which have received wounds in combat, no sick or dying seals are seen upon the islands.

“Out of the great numbers, thousands upon thousands of seals that must die every year from old age alone, not one have I ever seen here. They evidently give up their lives at sea.” (His report on Alaska, 1874, H. R. Ex. Doc. 83. 44th Cong., p. 150.)

To further prove that the contention of the Canadian Government is not at all unreasonable, it may be said that at the International Fisheries Exhibition, London, 1883, Mr. Brown Goode, of the U. S. Fish Commission, having stated the regulations of the United States concerning the Pribylov group, the official report upon the exhibition, says:

“Every animal, both in sea and on land, reproduces its kind in greater numbers than can possibly exist. In other words, all animals tend to multiply more rapidly than their food; many of them must in consequence either die or be destroyed, and man may rest satisfied that so far as the open ocean is concerned, the fish which he destroys, if he abstain from destroying, would perish in other ways. With respect to the former (seals), I have already pointed out that the restriction which the United States’ Government has placed on the destruction of seals in the Alaskan islands seem unnecessarily large.”

He added that nature has imposed a limit to their destruction.

Professor Elliott himself was of the opinion in 1874 (see his report on Alaska already referred to, pp. 88, 89) that—

“With regard to the increase of the seal life, I do not think it within the power of human management to promote this end to the slightest appreciable degree beyond its present extent and condition in a state of nature; for it can not fail to be evident, from my detailed description of the habits and life of the fur-seal on these islands during a great part of the year, that, could man have the same supervision and control over this animal during the whole season which he has at his command while they visit the land, he might cause them to multiply and increase, as he would so many cattle, to an indefinite number, only limited by time and means; but the case in question, unfortunately, takes the fur-seal six months out of every year far beyond the reach, or even cognizance of any one, where it is exposed to known powerful and destructive natural enemies, and many others probably unknown, which prey upon it, and, in accordance with a well-recognized law of nature, keep it at about a certain number, which has been for ages, and will be for the future, as affairs now are, its maximum limit of increase. This law holds good everywhere throughout the animal kingdom, regulating and preserving the equilibrium of life in a state of nature. Did it not hold good, these seal islands and all Behring Sea would have been literally covered, and have swarmed with them long before the Russians discovered them; but there were no more seals when first seen here by human eyes in 1786–’87 than there are now, in 1874, as far as all evidence goes.

* * * * * * *

“What can be done to promote their increase? We can not cause a greater number of females to be born every year; we do not touch or disturb these females as they grow up and live, and we save more than enough males to serve them. Nothing more can be done, for it is impossible to protect them from deadly enemies in their wanderings for food.

“This great body of four and five millions of hearty, active animals must consume an enormous amount of food every year. They can not average less than 5 pounds of fish each per diem (this is not half enough for an adult male), which gives the consumption of over three million tons of fish every year!

“To get this immense food supply the seals are compelled to disperse over a very large area of the North Pacific and fish. This brings them into contact more and more with their enemies as they advance south, until they reach a point where their annual destruction from natural foes is equal to their increase, and at this point their number will remain fixed. About the seal islands I have failed to notice the least disturbance among these animals by anything in the water or out, and from my observation I am led to believe that it is not until they descend well to the south in the North Pacific that they meet with sharks and voracious killer-whales.”^*

The following extract from the report of Mr. H. H. McIntyre, special agent of the Treasury at the islands in 1869, largely supports the foregoing views:

“The habits of the fur-seal are peculiar, and in considering the action necessary to their protection deserve careful attention. From the statements of the employés of the late Russian-American Company, the information derived from the intelligent native chief of St. Paul Island, and my own observation during the summer of 1869 I have reached the following conclusions: The seals reach the islands of St. Paul and St. George in May, June, and July of each year in the following order: first, a small number of old male seals, known as wigs, visit the islands very early in the spring, or as soon as the ice has melted sufficiently to allow them to reach the rocks upon the shore. Their object at this time seems to be solely to reconnoiter their old rookeries with a view to re-occupy them, if they have not been disturbed, and the natives, so understanding it, avoid any noise likely to alarm them, and in case the wind is in such direction as to carry the smoke from the settlement towards the rookeries all fires are extinguished. After a few days these pioneers take their departure, and as the season advances, if they have been undisturbed on the occasion of their first visit, they return, bringing with them all the males of mature age, above five or six years old, who are able to maintain their places in the breeding rookeries. Climbing up on the rocks, each seal selects his position and takes possession of and occupies through the season, if sufficiently strong, from 1 to 3 square rods of ground.

“Still later in the season, when the ice has nearly disappeared, the females arrive, conveyed by the young males above one year of age, who are unable to occupy the rookeries with their seniors. The females, immediately on reaching the shore, are appropriated by the old males and taken to the places respectively selected by them for the season, which is generally the same for many successive years. It is asserted that the same male seal has been known to occupy one rock for more than twenty seasons. The young seals above one year of age, called bachelors, take their positions around the edges of the rookeries or remain in the water, and are constantly trying to steal the females from their respective masters, who also rob each other of their families, by stealth or strength, whenever occasion offers, and thus an incessant quarrel is maintained at all points, which keeps the old males constantly on the alert. They never leave their places, seldom sleep, nor do they eat anything whatever during the entire season from May to August, when they go into the water, but, as far as can be ascertained, take no food until their final departure in November. It may be remarked, however, that they are very fat on arrival and quite as lean at the time of leaving, in autumn. The young seals are supposed to feed while in the water, but this has not been definitely proved, nor is the nature of their food well known, since an examination of their stomachs seldom reveals mere than a green, mucilaginous matter. Following all others, the yearling seals arrive about the middle of July, accompanied by a few of the older males, and remain for the greater part of the time in the water. Soon after their arrival, in the months of June and July, the females bring forth their young.” (Ex. Doc, 41st Cong., 2d sess., No. 36, p. 14.)

Reference has been made to the raids upon the rookeries, and to the fact that insufficient care has been taken of the breeding ground. It is contended that it is the duty of the Government drawing an enormous rental from these islands to carefully guard and protect them, and it is undoubted that with efficient protection the increase of seal life will be more marvelous than ever.

Mr. Tingle, in 1886, in his report to Secretary Fairchild, urges the Government to keep a cutter around the islands from the 1st of July to the 1st of November.

Mr. Morgan, in 1888, in his evidence before Congress (p. 23), said there were not sufficient cutters for the protection of the islands, and Mr. Wardman, special agent of the Treasury at the islands, 1881 to 1885, said:

“I think the Government ought to keep at least one revenue steamer therein and about these two islands up until the middle of October at least. The trouble has been in the revenue marine service. The appropriations were all right, and a fellow would be sent up to nominally protect the seal islands, but he would also be ordered to look for the north pole as well as watch the seal islands. He might find the north pole, but not around the seal islands. He would be away just at the time he would be needed around there.” (Evidence before Congressional committee, p. 38.)

The Hon. Mr. Williams said:

“The Government practice, through the Treasury Department, has been to protect these waters so far as they could with the revenue-cutters which are at their command. Still, it has frequently happened that a revenue-cutter goes upon the seal ground and then is ordered north for inspection, or for the relief of a whaling crew or something of that kind, and they are gone pretty much the whole time of the sealing season, and there seems to bean insufficiency in the method of projection.” (Evidence before Congressional committee, p. 106.)

Mr. Taylor, special agent of the Treasury in 1881, said before the same committee (p. 58):

“The difficulty heretofore has been that our revenue-cutters have been obliged to cover a territory of 800 miles long and 700 or 800 miles wide, north and southland they would get around to the seal islands about twice during a season. They never happened to be there when needed and as far as rendering any service whatever is concerned, they were practically useless so far as the seal islands were concerned. That has been the experience, I believe, of all who have been there.”

This officer recommended steam-launches for Government agents at the islands. (Evidence before Congressional committee, p. 109.)

Mr. Glidden, another agent of the Treasury from 1882 to 1885, says (evidence Congressional committee, p. 28) when he was at the islands the Government kept no vessels there.

“They landed our officers on a little island 6 miles from St. Paul to watch. * * * In every report I made I recommended that they should keep a revenue-cutter there. One vessel can not protect those islands and visit the Arctic Ocean besides. The cruising ground is far too extensive, covering, as it does, a distance of several thousand miles, and while the cutter is absent in the Arctic much damage can be done by the marauding vessels to the seal islands.”

That Congress regarded it at the outset as the duty, at least, of the administration, to simply guard and regulate the islands is clear from the act first dealing with the subject.

Mr. Boutwell, the Secretary of the Treasury, reported in 1870 (41st Cong., 2d sess., Ex. Doc. 109) as follows:

“A suggestion has been made to this Department, in various forms, that the Government should lease these islands for a long period of time to a company or firm, for an annual sum of money, upon the condition that provision should be made for the subsistence and education of the natives, and that the fisheries themselves should be preserved from injury. This plan is open to the very grave objection that it makes a monopoly of a branch of industry, important not only for the people of the islands but to the people of the United States, if the preparation and manufacture of the skins for use should be transferred from London to this country. Such a monopoly is contrary to the ideas of the people, and not many years would pass before serious efforts would be made for its overthrow. Moreover, the natives of the islands would be under the control of the company, and, as the expiration of the lease approached, the inducements to protect them and preserve the fisheries would diminish, especially if the company saw, as would probably be the case, that it had no hope of a renewal of its privileges. Under these circumstances the Government of the United States would necessarily be subjected to great expense and trouble.

“For these reasons, briefly stated, but valid, as they appear to me, I can not concur in the suggestion that the islands should be leased to any company for a period of years.

“Inasmuch as it will be necessary for the Government of the United States to maintain in and around the islands a military and naval force for the protection of its interests under any plan that can be devised, I am of opinion that it is better that the Government should assume the entire control of the business of the islands, and exclude everybody but its own servants and agents; that it should establish a rigid system of police, excluding from the islands distilled spirits and fire-arms, and subject vessels that touch there to forfeiture, except when they are driven to seek shelter or for necessary repairs. The conditions of such occupancy and control by the Government of the United States seem to me to be these:

“First, the exclusion of other parties; second, the supply to the natives of such articles as they are accustomed to use; third, compensation to the natives for their labor, and the payment of a sufficient additional sum each year to enable them to live in the manner to which they have been accustomed; fourth, an equitable division of the value of the skins over the payments made to the natives, and the cost to the Government of the United States of maintaining such force as is necessary for the protection of the business.

“The portion of the surplus equitably belonging to the natives might be set aside for the purpose of education and religious teaching, the erection of more suitable dwellings than they now possess, and generally for their physical, intellectual, and moral improvement.

“If the Government were to lease the islands it would not be possible to withdraw entirely the military and naval forces, or to neglect a careful supervision, and the additional expense consequent upon retaining possession of the business of the islands in the hands of the Government would not be large.

“Ordinarily, I agree in the opinion that a government, especially one like that of the United States, is not adapted to the management of business; but this clearly is a business which can not be left open to individual competition; and if it is to be a monopoly, whether profitable or otherwise, the interest of the Government is so large, and the expenses incident to the protection of these islands so great, that it can not afford to substitute to any extent the monopoly of an individual or of a company for its own lawful supervision.

“Should the Government fail in the attempt to manage the business through its own agents, there will then be opportunity to lease the fisheries to private parties; but my opinion is that a larger revenue can be obtained from them by actual management than by a lease.

“In further reply to the resolution, I have to say that the skins taken in 1868 were removed by Messrs. Kohl, Hutchinson & Co., the Solicitor of the Treasury being of opinion that the Government had no legal authority to detain them. Those taken in 1869 are upon the islands, but no decision has been made touching the rights of the Government.

“In concluding this report, I desire to call the attention of Congress to the fact that it is necessary to legislate immediately so far as to provide for the business of the present year. The natives will commence the capture of seals about the 1st of June.

“If the islands are to be leased for the present year it should be done immediately, that the lessee may make provision for the business of the year, If the business of the present year is to be conducted by the Government, as I think it should be, whatever our future policy, legislation is necessary; and I suggest that the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to appoint agents in Alaska, who shall be empowered to superintend the capture of the seals and the curing of the skins; and that an appropriation shall be made of $100,000, out of which the natives shall be paid for the labor performed by them and the other expenses incident to the business met.

“The Secretary of the Treasury should also be authorized to Bell the skins at public auction or upon sealed proposals at San Francisco or New York, as he may deem most for the interest of the Government.

“It should be observed in this connection that the Government derived no benefit whatever from the seal fishery of the year 1868, and that the skins taken in 1869 are, nominally at least, the property of two companies, while the Government, during the last year, has furnished protection to the natives and the fishery, and has no assurance at present that it will derive any benefit whatever therefrom.

“If legislation is long delayed the business of the year 1870 will be but a repetition of that of 1869.”

While the Canadian contention is supported, as has been seen, by many extracts from the reports of officials of the United States Government, it is apparent that the desire of the lessees, and indirectly that of the officials, has been to create a monopoly in the fur-seal industry, since in this way the market for the skins is largely enhanced and the value of the islands greatly increased.

This is no doubt one reason for the divergent opinions entertained as to the best regulations for the preservation of seal life between those who control the islands and those who are compelled to hunt the seals in the ocean.

In support of the above assertion the following authorities are in point:

Mr. Bryant, in 1869 (Senate Ex. Doc. No. 32, 41st Cong., 2d sess.), stated that the large number taken in 1867 and in 1868 decreased the London valuation to $3 and $4 a skin.

Mr. Moore, in a report to the Secretary of the Treasury (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, p. 196, 44th Cong., 1st sess.), says, when alluding to the advisability of killing more seals than prescribed by the act of July 1, 1870:

“It seems that the 100,000 fur-seals from our own islands, together with the 30,000 obtained by them from Asiatic islands, besides the scattering fur-seals killed in the south seas, are all the market of the world can conveniently take. In fact, it is pretty evident that the very restriction of the numbers killed is about the most valuable part of the franchise of the Alaska Commercial Company, and it is only another proof of the absurdity of the frequent charges made against them that they surreptitiously take from our islands 20,000 to 30,000 more seals than they are entitled to take.

* * * * * * *

“There does not exist any doubt, nor indeed is it denied by the Alaska Commercial Company, that the lease of the islands of St. Paul and St. George is highly lucrative. The great success of this franchise is, however, owing, as far as I could ascertain, to three principal causes: First, the Alaska Commercial Company, owing to the fact that they have the sole control of the three Asiatic islands on which fur-seals are found, as well as on our own islands, as St. Paul and St. George, virtually manage the sale of 80 per cent, of all the fur-seals killed annually in the world; secondly, the arbitrary and somewhat eccentric law of fashion has raised the price of fur-seals in the markets of the world during the last four years fully 100 per cent, in value; thirdly, time and experience have given this controlling company most valuable advantages. For instance, in the island of St. Paul, where a reputed number of from 3,000,000 to 3,500,000 of seals congregate, the comparatively small quantity only of formerly 75,000 and now 90,000 are killed. The company employs experts in selecting easily the kind that are the most valuable in the market, and have no difficulty in getting 90,000 out of a flock of 3,000,000 to 3,500,000, which are the select of the select; and it is owing to this cause, and to the care taken in avoiding cuts in the skins, as also in properly preparing them for the market, that the high prices are obtained. Indeed, the fact is that a fur-seal selling now in London for £2 10s. or £3 is, owing to its superior quality and excellent condition, cheaper than the fur-seals which five years ago fetched 30 shillings sterling. The former mode of the indiscriminate killing of fur-seals was as detrimental to the value of the skins as it was to the existence of the breed. With such a valuable franchise, secured by a contract that has still fifteen years to run, but which could, without notice, be terminated by the Secretary of the Treasury for cause, it would indeed be a suicidal policy on the part of the company to infringe on the stipulations of the contract.”

All this is explained in the evidence before the Congressional committee, pages 77, 101, 105, and 121, where the company is shown not to have taken the full quota in two years.

“Not because we could not get enough seals, but because the market did not demand them. There were plenty of seals.” (Evidence before Congressional committee, p. 121.)

Mr. McIntyre, once a special agent, has already been quoted, and was afterwards in the service of the company, reported, in 1869, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Blaine (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 36, 41st Cong., 2d sess.), that—

“The number of skins that may be secured, however, should not be taken as the criterion on which to fix the limit of the yearly catch, but rather the demand of the market, keeping, of course, always within the annual production. It appears that under the Russian management a much larger number was sometimes killed than could be advantageously disposed of. Thus, in 1803, after the slaughter had been conducted for some years without regard to the market, an accumulation of 800,000 skins was found in the storehouses on the islands, 700,000 of which were thrown into the sea as worthless. At several times since that date the market has been glutted, and sales almost or quite suspended. A few months previously to the transfer of Alaska to the United states seal-skins were worth in London only $1.50 to $3 each, and several thousand skins owned by the Russian-American Company were sold to parties in San Francisco, at the time of the transfer, at 50 cents to $1.25, a sum insufficient to pay the present cost of securing and transporting them to that city. Soon afterwards, however, fur-seal garments became fashionable in Europe, and in the expectation that the usual supply would be cut off by reason of the transfer of Alaska, prices advanced to $4 to $7 per skin; contrary to the expectation of dealers more than 200,000 skins were taken by the various parties engaged in the business on the islands in 1868, and the London price has declined to $3 to $4 per skin; and I am assured that if the raw skins now held by dealers in London were thrown upon the market, a sufficient sum to pay the cost of transportation from the islands could hardly be realized. The number of raw skins now upon the market is not less than 350,000, and it is predicted that several years must elapse before the demand will again raise the price above the present rate, if, indeed, the large surplus of skins does not carry it much lower before reaction begins.”

Many of the dangers to seal life have been mentioned, and it has been shown that the herd still thrives; but the wonderful productiveness of the seal is further shown by an allusion to a danger greater than all the assaults of man in the deep sea —a danger ever existing, which naturally tends to keep the seals inshore, or, when outside, to scatter.

Reference is made to the killer-whales and sharks. (H. R. Ex. Doc. 83, 44th Cong., 1st sess., p. 177, and pp. 80, 87 of appendix to the same document; also page 359 of evidence before Congressional committee, 1888.)

“That these animals are preyed upon extensively by killer-whales (Orca gladiator) in especial, and by sharks, and probably other submarine foes now unknown, is at once evident; for were they not held in check by some such cause they would, as they exist to-day on St. Paul, quickly multiply, by arithmetical progression, to so great an extent that the island, nay, Behring Sea itself, could not contain them. The present annual killing of 100,000 out of a yearly total of over a million males does not in any appreciable degree diminish the seal life, or interfere in the slightest with its regular, sure perpetuation on the breeding grounds every year. We may, therefore, properly look upon this aggregate of four and five millions of fur-seals as we see them every season on these Pribylov Islands as the maximum limit of increase assigned to them by natural law. The great equilibrium which nature holds in life upon this earth must be sustained at St. Paul as well as elsewhere. (Elliott’s report, pp. 62, 64.)

“When before the Committee of Ways and Means on the 17th of March, 1876, on the investigation before alluded to, Mr. Elliott made a similar statement, giving in somewhat greater detail the reasons for his conclusions. His evidence will be found annexed to the report of the committee.” (Report No. 623, H. R., 44th Cong., 1st sess.)

Respecting the practice of sealing as known in Canada, it may be said: Canadian sealers start out upon their sealing voyages some time in the beginning of the year. The vessels go down to a point off San Francisco, and from thence work north. The seals taken by them off the coast are of both sexes, many in pup, some young bulls; very few old bulls run in the Pacific Ocean.

The catch of each vessel will average between 500 and 700 seals a year between 1st of January and the end of May.

When an untrained crew is taken, many shots may be fired without hitting the seals at all, since the novice expects he can hit when at considerable distance, the seals in such cases escaping entirely; but with Indian hunters aid expert whites a seal is nearly always captured when hit. An expert never shoots until after he has arrived at close quarters, and generally when the seal is asleep.

In Behring Sea the catch is made up largely of young bachelors.

Sealing captains contend that no male becomes fit for the rookeries until six years of age. This contention is supported by the authorities to whom reference has already been made.

It is further contended that should a temporary diminution of seal life become apparent upon the islands of the Pribylov group, it would not follow that the herds were decreasing. Professor Elliott, in his report of 1874 upon Alaska, so frequently referred to in this paper, argues on pages 265 and 266 that in such a case a corresponding augmentation may occur in Copper or Behring Island, since “these animals are not particularly attached to the respective places of their birth.”

“Thus it appears to me necessary that definite knowledge concerning the Commander Islands and the Kuriles should be possessed; without it I should not hesitate to say that any report made by an agent of the Department as to a visible diminution of the seal life on the Pribylovs due, in his opinion, to the effect of killing as it is conducted was without good foundation; that this diminution would have been noticed just the same in all likelihood had there been no taking of seals at all on the islands, and that the missing seals are more than probably on the Russian grounds.”

[Inclosure 4.]

Note on the question of the protection of the fur-seal in the North Pacific.

(By Mr. George Dawson, D. S., F. G. S., F. R. S. C, F. R. M. S., Assistant Director of the Geological Survey of Canada.)

The mode of protection which is apparently advocated by the United States Government in the case of the fur-seal, viz, that of leasing the privilege of killing the animal on the breeding grounds and prohibiting its capture elsewhere, is a new departure in the matter of such protection. If, indeed, the whole sweep of the Pacific Ocean north of the equator was dominated and effectively controlled by the United States, something might be said in favor of some such mode of protection from a commercial point of view; but in the actual circumstances the results would be so entirely in favor of the United States, and so completely opposed to the interests and natural rights of citizens of all other countries, that it is preposterous to suppose that such a mode of protection of these animals can be maintained.

Such an assumption can be based in this case on one or other only of two grounds:

Stated briefly, the position of the United States in the matter appears to be based on the idea of allowing, for a money consideration, the slaughter of the maximum possible number of seals compatible with the continued existence of the animals on the Pribylov Islands, while, in order that this number shall not be reduced, no sealing is to be permitted elsewhere.

(1) That Behring Sea is a mare clausum.

(2) That each and every fur-seal is the property of the United States.

Both claims have been made in one form or other, but neither has, so far as I know, been officially formulated.

The first is simply disproved by the geographical features of Behring Sea, by the fact that this sea and Behring Strait contribute the open highway to the Arctic and to part of the northern shore of Canada, by the previous action of the United States Government when this sea was nearly surrounded by Russian territory, and by the fact that from 1842 to the date of the purchase of Alaska fleets of United States and other whalers were annually engaged in Behring Sea. It is scarcely possible that any serious attempt will be made to support this contention. (Bancroft’s History, vol. 33, Alaska, p. 583 et seq.)

The second ground of claim is candidly advanced by H. W. Elliott, who writes:

“The fur-seals of Alaska, collectively and individually, are the property of the General Government. * * * Every fur-seal playing in the waters of Behring Sea around about the Pribylov Islands, no matter if found so doing 100 miles away from those rookeries, belong there, has been begotten and born thereon, and is the animal that the explicit shield of the law protects. No legal sophism or quibble can cloud the whole truth of my statement. * * * The matter is, however, now thoroughly appreciated and understood at the Treasury Department, and has been during the past four years, as the seal pirates have discovered to their chagrin and discomfiture.” (U. S. 10th Census, vol. 8, Fur-Seal Islands, p. 157.)

Waiving for the moment the general objection which may be raised to the enforcement of such a principle on the high seas—an enforcement which the United States, in the interest of the Alaska Fur Company, appear to have undertaken—the facts upon which the assumption are based may be questioned. Mr. Elliott, in fact, himself writes, on the same page (referring to the presence of a large sealing fleet in Behring Sea), that it could not fail “in a few short years in so harassing and irritating the breeding seals as to cause their withdrawal from the Alaska rookeries, and probable retreat to those of Russia—a source of undoubted Muscovite delight and emolument and of corresponding loss and shame to us.”

This remark implies that the seals may resort to either the Pribylov or the Russian islands, according to circumstances; and who is to judge, in the case of a particular animal, in which of these places it has been born? The old theory that the seals returned each year to the same spot has been amply disproved. Elliott himself admits this, and it is confirmed (op. cit., p. 31) by Capt. Charles Bryant, who resided eight years in the Pribylov Islands as Government agent, and who, having marked 100 seals in 1870, on St. Paul Island, recognized, the next year, 4 of them in different rookeries on that island and 2 on St. George Island. (Monograph on North American Pinnipedes, Allen, 1880, p. 401.)

It is, moreover, by no means certain that the fur-seals breed exclusively on the Russian and United States seal islands of Behring Sea, though these islands are no doubt their principal and important breeding places. They were formerly, according to Captain Shannon, found in considerable numbers on the coast of California: and Captain Bryant was credibly informed (“Marine Mammals of Coast of Northwest North America,” pp. 152, 154, quoted by Allen, op. cit., p. 332) of the existence in recent years of small breeding colonies of these animals on the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. Mr. Allen further quotes from the observations of Mr. James G. Swan, field assistant of the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries.

“Mr. Swan” (I quote from Mr. Elliott) “has passed nearly an average life-time on the Northwest coast, and has rendered to natural science and to ethnology efficient and valuable service.”

His statements may therefore be received with respect. He writes:

“The fact that they (the fur-seals) do bear pups in the open ocean, off Fuca Strait, is well established by the evidence of every one of the sealing captains, the Indians, and my own personal observations. Dr. Power says the facts do not admit of dispute. * * * It seems as preposterous to my mind to suppose that all the fur-seals of the North Pacific go to the Pribylov Islands as to suppose that all the salmon go to the Columbia or Eraser River or to the Yukon.”

To this Prof. D. S. Jordon, the well-known naturalist, adds:

“I may remark that I saw a live fur-seal pup at Cape Flattery, taken from an old seal just killed, showing that the time of bringing them forth was just at hand.”

On these statements Mr. Allen himself remarks:

“These observations, aside from the judicious suggestions made by Mr. Swan, are of special interest as confirming those made some years ago by Captain Bryant, and already briefly recorded in this work. They seem to show that at least a certain number of fur-seals repair to secluded places, suited to their needs, as far south as the latitude of Cape Flattery, to bring forth their young.” (Allen, op. cit., pp. 411, 772, 773.)

Mr. Elliott, of course, stoutly denies the authenticity of all these observations, it being necessary to do so in order to maintain his contention as to the ownership of the United States Government, or the Alaska Fur Company, as the case may be, in the seals.

It has further been often stated that the killing of fur-seals in the open sea off the North Pacific coast is a comparatively new departure, while it is, as a matter of fact, morally certain that the Indians of the whole length of that coast have pursued and killed these animals from time immemorial. As the value of the skins has, however, only of late years become fully known and appreciated, it is naturally difficult to obtain much trustworthy evidence of this without considerable research. Some facts can, however, be adduced. Thus, Captain Shannon described the mode of hunting seals in canoes employed by the Indians of Vancouver Island, and refers to the capture of seals by the Indians off the Straits of Fuca, where, he adds, they appear—

“Some years as early as the 1st of March, and more or less remain till July or August, but they are most plentiful in April and May. During these two months the Indians devote nearly all their time to sealing when the weather will permit.”

In 1843 to 1864 only a few dozen skins are known to have been taken annually, but in 1869 fully 5,000 were obtained. Mr. Allen, writing in 1880, states that—

“During the winter months considerable numbers of seal-skins are taken by the natives of British Columbia, some years as many as 2,000.” (Allen, op. cit., pp. 332, 371, 411.)

The protection of the fur-seals from extermination has from time to time been speciously advanced as a sufficient reason for extraordinary departures from the respect usually paid to private property and to international rights; but any protection based on the lease of the breeding grounds of these animals as places of slaughter, and an attempt to preserve the seals when at large and-spread over the ocean, as they are during the greater part of each year, is unfair in its operation, unsound in principle, and impracticable in enforcement.

Referring to the interests of the Indians of the Northwest coast, it is true that a certain number of Aleuts now on the Pribylov Islands (398 in all, according to Elliott) are dependent on the sealing business for subsistence, but these islands were uninhabited when discovered by the Russians, who brought these people here for their own convenience. Further south along the coast the natives of the Aleutian Islands, of the southeast coast of Alaska and of the entire coast of British Columbia have been, and still are, accustomed annually to kill considerable numbers of seals. This it would be unjust to interfere with, even were it possible to carry out any regulations with that effect. The further development of oceanic sealing affords employment to, and serves as a mode of advancement and civilization for, these Indians, and is one of the natural industries of the coast. No allusion need be made to the prescriptive rights of the white sealers, which are well known.

The unsoundness of this principle of conservation is shown by what has occurred in the southern hemisphere in respect to the fur-seals of that region. About the beginning of the century very productive sealing grounds existed in the Falkland Islands, Korguelen Islands, Georgian Islands, the west coast of Patagonia, and many other places similarly situated, all of which were in the course of a few years almost absolutely stripped of seals, and in many of which the animal is now practically extinct. This destruction of the southern fur-sealing trade was not caused by promiscuous sealing at sea, but entirely by hunting on and around the shores, and, had these islands been protected as breeding places, the fur-seals would in all probability be nearly as abundant in the south to-day as they were at the date at which the trade commenced.

The impracticability of preventing the killing of seals on the open sea and of efficiently patrolling the North Pacific for this purpose is sufficiently obvious. The seals, moreover, when at sea (in marked contrast with their boldness and docility in their breeding places), are extremely wary, and the number which can be obtained by legitimate hunting at sea must always be small as compared with the total. Elliott, in fact, states that the seal, when at sea, “is the shyest and wariest your ingenuity can define.” (Op. cit, p. 65.)

The position is such that at the present time the perpetuation or the extermination of the fur-seal in the North Pacific as a commercial factor practically depends entirely on the regulations and restrictions which may be applied by the United States to the Pribylov Islands, and now that this is understood a regard for the general interest of its own citizens, as well as for those of other countries, demands that the extermination or serious depletion of the seals on their breeding islands should be prevented. It is probably not necessary for this purpose that the killing of seals on these islands should be entirely prohibited. Both Elliott and Bryant show good reason for believing that a large number of seals may be killed annually without reducing the average aggregate number which can find suitable breeding grounds on these islands, and after the very great reduction in numbers which occurred, owing to an inclement season about 1836 (Elliott), or 1842 (Bryant), the seals increased very rapidly again, and in a few years being nearly as numerous as in 1873, when the total number on the islands was estimated at over 4,700,000.

By retaining an efficient control of the number of seals to be killed on the Pribylov Islands, and by fixing this number anew each season in accordance with circumstances, the United States Government will be in a position to counteract the effect of other causes tending to diminish the number of seals, whether climatic or resulting from the killing of a larger number at sea. There is no reason to apprehend that the number of seals which might thus be safely killed on the islands would under any circumstances be so small as to fail to cover the cost of the administration and protection of the islands. If such a policy as this, based on the common interests in the preservation of the seals, were adopted, it might be reasonable to agree (for the purpose of safeguarding the islands and for police purposes) that the jurisdiction of the United States in this matter should be admitted to extend to some greater distance than this usual one of 3 marine miles, though, as shown further on, the necessary distance would not be great.

The situation of the Pribylov Islands and the habits of the seal together cause the problem of its preservation to be one of extreme simplicity if approached from the point of view of protection on and about the islands, but one of very great difficulty if looked at from any other stand-point. The long-continued and presumably accurate observations which have been made on the habits of the seals show that during the entire breeding season they are very closely confined to the immediate shores elf the breeding islands, and that neither in arriving nor in departing from these islands do they form schools or appear together in such numbers as to render promiscuous slaughter at sea possible. The old bulls actually remain on shore during the entire breeding season, while the females, though leaving their young from time to time for the water, are described as haunting the immediate vicinity of the shores just beyond the line of surf. Even the bachelor seals (Elliott, op. cit., pp. 45, 64 et passim; Allen, op. cit., p. 386), which constitute a distinct body while ashore and are not actually engaged in breeding or protecting the young, are said to remain close to the shore. If, however, any seals are to be found at this time going to or returning from the sea at some distance from land, these belong to the “bachelor” class, which is the very class selected for the killing by the fur company. The young females, after leaving the islands in the year of their birth, do not return at all till after reaching maturity in their third year. (Allen, op. cit., p. 402.)

The evidence obtained by Captain Bryant shows that while “small groups of small seals (apparently one and two years old)” are met with at large in Behring Sea during July and August, no considerable numbers of schools are to be found. (Allen, op. cit., p. 411.)

It is thus apparent that the perfect security of the seals actually engaged in breeding and suckling their young may be secured without extending the limits of protection beyond the usual distance of 3 miles from the shores of the breeding islands, but that for the purpose of increasing the facilities of supervision a somewhat wider limit might reasonably be accorded. Possibly by defining an area inclosed by lines joining points 3 miles off the extreme headlands and inlets of the Pribylov group, an ample and unobjectionable area of protection might be established.

It is allowed by all naturalists that the habits of the fur-seals of the southern hemisphere are identical with those of the seal of the North Pacific, and it is therefore admissible to quote the observations of Dampier on Juan Fernandez Island in further confirmation of the fact that these animals go only for a very short distance from land during the breeding season, even when in immense multitudes on the shore. Dampier writes:

“Here are always thousands, I might say possibly millions of them, either sitting on the bays or going and coming in the sea round the islands, which is covered with them (as they lie at the top of the water playing and sunning themselves) for a mile or two from the shore.” (“A New Voyage Round the World,” 1703; quoted by Allen, op. cit., p. 334.)

These rookeries have, like others in the South, been long since depleted and abandoned.

The circumstance that the female fur-seal becomes pregnant within a few days after the birth of its young, and that the period of gestation is nearly twelve months, with the fact that the skins are at all times fit for market (though for a few weeks, extending from the middle of August to the end of September, during the progress of the shedding and renewal of the longer hair, they are of less value) show that there is no natural basis for a close season generally applicable. Thus, should any close season be advocated, its length and the time of year during which it shall occur, can only be determined as a matter of convenience and be of the nature of a compromise between the various interests involved. The pelagic habits of the seals during fully six months of each year, and the fact that they are during the entire winter season widely dispersed over the Pacific, constitute a natural and unavoidable close season. It is thus only possible, from a commercial point of view, to kill the seals during the period of their approximate concentration for migration or when in Behring Sea. This is the period fixed by nature during which seals may be taken, and any artificial close season can be effective only if applied to the further curtailment of the time at which it is possible to carry on the fishery. It may be assumed, therefore, as such a close season for seal hunting at sea must be purely arbitrary and artificial, that any close season proposed by the United States or the lessees of the seal islands will be chosen entirely in the interest of sealing on shore, and so arranged as to render the time of sealing on the open sea as short and unprofitable as possible. It is thus important that the sea-going sealers should at least have an equal voice in the matter of the time and duration of a close period if such should be contemplated.

George M. Dawson.

March 5, 1890.

1. The evidence referred to in this memorandum will be found in H. R. Report 3883, Fiftieth Congress, second session.
2. “In the stomach of one of these animals (year before last) fourteen small harp-seals were found.” Michael Carroll’s report, Canadian Fisheries, 1872.