70 ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 



in recent years, aud that there is therefore no lack of materia] from -which to study 

 its character and effect even at the jircsent time.'' 



In the zeal of their advocacy on behalf of pelagic dealing and their denunciation 

 of the methods in use on the islands the commissioners have experienced much and 

 evident difficulty in framing their theory. If they admitted, in unqualified terms, a 

 decrease in number, the obvious deduction from the concession would be that the 

 unlimited slaughter of females must bear the blame and burden of such a result. If, 

 on the other hand, they should assert that the number actually increased, this would 

 only be consistent with an approval of the methods in use on the land. Between 

 this Scylla and this Charybdis a way of escape must be found, and it was found. The 

 ingenuity here displayed deserves full notice and acknowledgment. The joint report 

 contains this statement: 



" We find that since the Alaska purchase a marked diminution in the number of 

 seals on and habitually resorting to the Pribilof Islands has taken place, that it has 

 been cumulative in effect, and that it is the result of excessive killing by man." 



Bearing in mind that the fur seals forming the object of this controversy have no 

 other home on land than the Pribilof Islands, and that the British commissiouei's them- 

 selves concede that they, for the most part, breed on those islands; bearing in miud, 

 too, that these gentlemen have not yet discovered any other summer habitat for the 

 seals, it would seem that this declaration is equivalent, in its fair sense and meaning, 

 to a statement that the fur seals that frequent the American coast and the Bering 

 Sea have suffered a marked decrease. 



Perhaps it was so intended by the British, as it was by the United States commis- 

 sioners; but if so, the former gentlemen have lost sight of their original intention 

 and have been led to nice distinctions, which we shall now examine. 



That the seal, although "essentially pelagic" (section 26), has not yet learned to 

 breed at sea is not denied, although to the vision of the commissioners the prospect 

 of such a transformation or evolution is evidently not very remote. We must, in 

 justice to them, quote one single passage, which admirably illustrates the compla- 

 cency and self-confidence with which they wrest to their own purposes with unhesi- 

 tating violence the laws of nature and the mysteries of ulterior evolution. If this 

 quotation does not give a just idea of the imaginative powers of these officials 

 nothing but a perusal of the whole of their work will do them justice: 



"The changes in the habits and mode of life of the seals naturally divide them- 

 selves into two classes, which may be considered separately. The first and most 

 direct and palpable of these is that shown in the increased shyness and wariness of 

 the animal, which, though always pelagic in its nature, has been forced by circum- 

 stances to shun the land more than before, so that but for the necessity imposed upon 

 it of seeking the shore at the season of birth of the young it might probably ere 

 this have become entirely pelagic." 



An animal "always pelagic," forced by circumstances to shun the land more than 

 before, and which would become entirely pelagic long before this if it were not 

 obliged to seek the shore for so trifling an object as giving birth to its young, deserves 

 to be classed among the curiosities of nature. The difference between animals (now) 

 always pelagic and those (in the future) entirely pelagic may not readily be under- 

 stood without explanation not vouchsafed. How can they be always pelagic if they 

 are obliged to seek the land or perish, and why is it reasonable to talk of the prob- 

 ability of their becoming something different from what they are when that con- 

 jecture is based upon nothing but reckless and grotesque assumption? Of course, 

 this and other specimens of affront to common sense are merely gratuitous and 

 pointless vagaries. But the thesis must be sustained, viz, that the seals are not 

 even .amphibious animals; their resort to land is a merely accidental necessity, and 

 therefore the United States can no more claim a right to or possession in them than 

 in other "essentially pelagic animals," such as the whale, the codfish, or the turbot. 



If anything more were needed to emphasize the absurdity of this defiance of well- 

 known facts and settjod distinctions in the animal world we might still further cite 

 the British commissioners on the subject of the seal pelage or shedding of hair. It 

 seems that these pelagic animals were not endowed by nature with the proper skin 

 to perform this function in their native element. Unless they can find a suitable 

 place out of water they retain the old hair and disregard the laws which would compel 

 an annual shedding. Lest this seem an exaggeration, read their report citing Mr. 

 Grebnitsky : "During the ' stagey' or shedding season their pelage becomes too thin 

 to afford a suitable protection from the water." (See section 202; also 281, 631, 632.) 



It is hardly necessary to say that this theory, so gravely and seriously advanced, 

 that the seal is naturally and essentially a pelagic animal, is utterly unsustained by 

 evidence, is refuted by the language of the commissioners themselves, and disputed 

 by elementary writers. It is only necessary to ascertain how naturalists define 

 pelagic animals and then compare such definition with the known characteristics 

 and rudimentary elements of seal life (see especially for this the books of Johns Hop- 

 kins University). Besides, the unanimous and unquestioned testimony of the agents 



