PAST AND FUTURE OF THE FUR SEAL. 363 



modern times. As a raw commodity they sold for an average of $2,500,000 at the 

 annual London trade sales, and the Pribilof quota yielded the Government of the United 

 States in revenue more than the $7,200,000 originally paid for the entire Territory of 

 Alaska. The value of raw sealskins is now represented by about $15 for skins taken 

 at sea and $30 for Pribilof skins. At the present revenue rate, if it were now possible 

 to take from the Pribilof Islands the former yearly quota, the Government income 

 would be nearly $1,000,000 annually. 



Importance of the sealskin industry. — The sealskin industry is of no slight impor- 

 tance and its proportions are but roughly indicated by the first profit on the raw skins. 

 These peltries must be gathered in remote regions ; they form part of the transportation 

 business of railroad and steamship lines ; coopers must make casks for their shipment; 

 they must pass through the hands of many laborers before they reach the 40 buyers in 

 London who purchase them, and the 2,000 skilled artisans who convert them into fab- 

 rics suited to the use of trade; and when all this is done there must still be stores main- 

 tained and clerks employed in order that they may find their way to the wealthy consu- 

 mers. The labor incident to the taking, transporting, manipulating, and disposing of 

 these peltries demands the employment of thousands of persons each year, and when 

 we recall the prices paid for these skins when converted into the garments dictated 

 by fashion, it will readily be seen that it is an industry the ultimate value of which 

 is represented by millions of dollars annually. Above all it is a peculiarly worthy 

 industry, in that it gives occupation to many, while the profits come from the purses 

 of those best able to pay them. 



Cause of the destruction of the northern fur seal. — Some ten years ago there was 

 put in operation on the American side of the Pacific ocean an agency of destruction, 

 the growth of which, if uninterrupted, promised to prove as effective as did the sailors' 

 clubs upon the southern resorts. Its promise has been generously kept, and from its 

 deadly though partially controlled effects the rookeries are now suffering. That agency 

 was pelagic sealing, or the taking of seals at sea by means of weapons. The source 

 of the injury is the indiscriminate killing. Whether this is practiced on land, as in 

 the south, or at sea, as in the north, the outcome is the same. No animal which pro- 

 duces but a single offspring each year can long survive an attack which involves the 

 death of the producing class, the females. I am aware that there is another side to 

 this question, and that two great nations point each a finger at the other and say: 

 "You did it." The subject-matter of that contention is only germane to such a paper 

 as this in so far as it touches upon the career of the seal, and only to that extent will 

 it be referred to. 



England and Canada hold the theory (which, injustice to them, should be stated) 

 that the decline of the northern rookeries was due to excessive killing on the islands, 

 pelagic sealing being a factor of only secondary importance. If this theory meant 

 that after pelagic sealing had made serious inroads upon the seal herds it was excessive 

 killing to continue taking the annual quota of 100,000 skins, it would be a sound one, 

 and the United States would be culpable to that extent, but England and Canada 

 would not accept this limitation; they want it to account for much more. They 

 fail, however, to sustain their theory until they show by clearest proof that the 

 decline of the rookeries began prior to the development of pelagic sealing, and also 

 get rid of the awkward fact that for the first twelve or fifteen years there was no diffi- 

 culty in securing the annual quota allowed by law. Why did this alleged decadence 



