8 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



in some few places over wliicli the authority of some power has been 

 exercised, and where regulations have been adopted more or less 

 resembling those adopted upon the Pribilof Islands, and by which 

 means the race has, to a certain extent, although comparatively small, 

 been preserved. 



That was the condition of things when these islands passed into the 

 possession in the United States under the treaty between that Govern- 

 ment and Eussia of 18G7. At first, upon the acquisition by the United 

 States Government, its authority was not immediately established; 

 and, consequently, this herd of seals was exposed to the indiscrimi- 

 nate ravages of individuals who might be tempted thither by their 

 hope of gaining a profit; and the result was that in the first year 

 something like 1*40,000 seals were taken, and although some discrimi- 

 nation was attempted and an effort was made to confine the taking as far 

 as possible to males only, yet those eftbrts were not in every respect 

 successful. That great draft thus irregularly and indiscriminately 

 made upon them had undoubtedly a very unfavorable effect; but the 

 following year the United States succeeded in establishing its authority 

 and at once re-adopted the system which had been up to that time 

 pursued by Eussia and which had been followed by such advantageous 

 results. 



In addition to that, and for the purpose of further insuring the 

 preservation of the herd, the United States Government resorted to 

 national legislation. Laws were passed, the first of them as early as 

 the year 1870, designed to protect the seal and other fur-bearing 

 animals in Bering Sea, and the other possessions recently acquired 

 from Eussia. At a later jieriod this statute — with others that had 

 been subsequently passed — was revised, I think in the year 1873, when 

 a general revision of the statutes of the United States was made. 

 They were revised and made more stringent. It was made a criminal 

 offence to kill any female seal; and the taking of any seals at all 

 except in pursuance of the authority of the United States aud under 

 such regulations as it might adopt was made a criminal offence. Any 

 vessel engaged in the taking of female seals "in the waters of Alaska," 

 according to the phrase used in the statute, was made liable to seizure 

 and confiscation; and in this way it was hoped and expected that the 

 fur-seals would be preserved in the future as completely as they had 

 been in the past and that this herd would continue to be still as pro- 

 ductive as before, and if possible made more productive. That system 

 thus initiated by the United States in the year 1870 produced the same 

 result as had followed the regulations established by Eussia. The 

 United States Government was enabled even to take a larger draft 

 than Eussia had prior to that time made upon the herd. Eussia had 

 limited herself at an early period to the taking of somewhere between 

 thirty and forty thousand seals annually, not solely perhaps for the 

 reason that no more could be safely taken from the herd, but also for 

 the reason, as I gather from the*^ evidence, that at that time the 

 demand for seals was not so great as to justify the putting of a larger 

 number of skins upon the market. 



At a later period of the occupation by Eussia, her drafts were 

 increased. At the time when the occupation was transferred to the 

 United States, I think they amounted to somewhere between 50,000 

 and 70,000 annually. The United States, as I say, took 100,000 from 

 the beginning, and continued to make those annual drafts of 100,000 

 down to the year 1800. That is a period of something like 19 years. 

 The taking of this number of 100,000 did not, at first^ appear to lead * 



