ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 111 



to show that in 1884 au irregularity in the habits of the seals took place 

 at the Pribilof Islands. This irregularity consisted in the following : In 

 previous years the seals that arrived in June furnished nearly all 8-pound 

 skins and over; very few of these seals were let go or rejected, and when 

 any were rejected it was principally because they were too large. But 

 this year the 2-year-old seals commenced to laud much earlier, and the 

 run of large half bulls arrived in more scattered bunches, just as if the 

 herd had been turned back in places and hurried ahead in others, thus 

 hurrying the smaller seals, so that they came on with the head of the 

 flock, and turning back some of thelarge seals which formerly hadarrived 

 later. No irregularity was observed in the habits of the female seals. 



Thomas F. Morgan. 



Deposition of James G. Swan, former iyispector of customs, employee of 

 Indian Bureau and of Fish Commission of United States. 



State of Washington, 



Jefferson County, ss : 



James G-. Swan, having been duly sworn, deposes and says: I am 74 

 years old, a resident of Port Townsend, Wash., and by occupation a 

 lawyer. I am also United States commissioner, Hawaiian consul, 

 commissioner for the State of Oregon, and a notary public. I came to 

 the Pacific Coast in 1850 and to Port Townsend in 1859, where I have 

 since held my residence the greater part of the time to the present 

 date. From 1862 to 1866 I was employed in the Indian Bureau of the 

 Interior Department and stationed at ISTeah Bay, and again from 1878 

 to 1881 1 was inspector of customs at the same place. In 1883 I also 

 visited there in the employ of the Fish Commissioner. 



In 1880, at the request of the late Professor Baird, of the Smithson- 

 ian Institute at Washington, I made a careful study of the habits of 

 the fur seal {Callorliinus ursinus) found in the vicinity of Cape Flattery 

 and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the result of my observation is 

 embodied in the Tenth United States Census (report of United States 

 Fish and Fisheries, sec. 5, vol. 2, p. 293. Fur seal of Cape Flattery 

 and Vicinity) and in the report of the United States Fish Commission. 

 (Bulletin United States Fish Commission, vol. 3, pp. 201-207.) 



The observations upon which these reports are based were mostly 

 confined to the immediate vicinity of Cape Flattery, and I had at that 

 time no opi)ortunity for extended inquiry as to the pelngic habits of 

 the animals. The natural history of the seal herd of the Pribilof Islands, 

 when upon or in the immediate vicinity of the land, had been minutely, 

 and, I have no doubt, accurately, described by H. W. Elliott in his mono- 

 graph published in 1875. There had been up to that date no series of 

 observations nor good evidence on which to base the hypothesis that 

 the Pribilof herd and the large mass of seals annually seen on the lati- 

 tude of Cape Flattery were identical. On the contrary, there seemed 

 then to be many evidences that some other rookeries than those of the 

 Pribilof Islands were located at some point on the Oregon, Washington, 

 or British Columbia coast. Young seals were occasionally found by 

 the Indians upon or near the beaches, and pregnant females were often 

 captured by them so heavy with pup, and apparently so near their full 

 term of pregnancy, as to warrant the belief that the young must be 

 either born in the water upon bunches of kelp or upon the rocks and 

 beaches on or near the coast. Young seals were often brought to the 



