FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 25 



it occur the following statements in re killing yearling seals (1909), 

 to wit: 



Aside from this I approved rather than objected to the close killing * * * in 



1909. It was a wise business policy in that season and in the seasons immediately 



" preceding and following to take every possible male on which the North American 



Commercial Co. would pay the tax of $10, and it must not be forgotten that the lessees 



paid this tax on every animal taken by them whether yearling or 3-year-old. 



1 criticized the close killing of the season of 1909 on two specific grounds. First, 

 that it is economically wasteful to kill at 2 or 1 year old an animal which at 3 will 

 produce a larger and a better skin. Second, that the lapping of the quota over the 3- 

 year-olds tended to obscure an important scientific fact in the life of the herd which 

 ought to be solved, and which 1 had hoped to throw some light upon. 1 objected to 

 the killing of the younger seals upon these grounds only, and recommended that 

 the killing be confined to the age of 3 years. 



This shows that the killing of yearlings which Secretary Nagel 

 denies in his letter to Senator Wesley L. Jones, February 23, 1911, was 

 well known to and stated to Nagel by his own special mvestigator, 

 George A. Clark, who was sent by hini in 1909 to report .upon this 

 killmg, and who did so report under date of September 30, 1909; 

 his report appears to have been suppressed by Bowers (with Nagel's 

 consent), and as stated on pages 82-84, Report of Elliott and Gal- 

 lagher, agents House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart- 

 ment of Commerce (Aug. 31, 1913). 



IN PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND KILLING BY THE LESSEES HAS 

 BEEN INJURIOUS AND WITHOUT PROPER RESTRAINT, THE FOLLOW- 

 ING RECORD IS MADE, TO WIT (BY SECRETARY NAGEL's OWN SPECIAL 

 AGENT, SEPT. 30, 1909) : 



In 1896, Dr. Jordan and his assistant, George A. Clark, made an 

 elaborate denial of the charge that excessive killing or too close 

 kiUing of the young male seals had injured and if continued would 

 exterminate the herd. (Pp. 33-36, Report, 1896: Treasury Doc, 

 1913.) In this argument they united in saying: 



In all these regards (i. e., as to killing seals) the interests of the lessees of the islands 

 must be identical with those of the herd itself and therefore with those of the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States. 



George A. Clark, sent up in 1909 by Secretary Charles Nagel, and 

 at Dr. Jordan's urgent request, to make an investigation into the 

 condition of the herd, after the effect of 13 years' killing by the 

 lessees as licensed in 1896, by Dr. Jordan, has this to say, as against 

 the above, anent the interests of the lessees. (Report, 1909: Ap- 

 pendix A, p. 854.) 



The history of the killing field since 1900 strongly suggests the wisdom of reserving 

 to the Government in the future more complete control of work of taking the 

 quota. The interests of the lessees and those of the herd are by no means identical, 

 and the latter are paramount. 



It is on the killing field, however, that the great need of a guiding and controlling 

 hand is shown. In 1896-97 the Government agents ordered the drives. This season 

 they have been entirely in the hands of the lessees. The young males set aside for 

 breeding purposes having been marked, the lessees have been free to take what they 

 could get, and this resulted in their taking practically all of the bachelors appearing 

 on the hauling grounds. 



******* 



A diminished breeding reserve has therefore been possible. But we must consider 

 a reversed condition of things, if pelagic sealing is to be done away with. The herd 

 will then begin to grow. It will require a constantly increasing reserve of breeding 



