FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 31 



Therefore when Secretary Straus m 1906, 1907, and 1908, and 

 Secretary Nagel were plamly and clearly advised of the fact that 

 then- agents and the seal contractors or lessees were busy in violatmg 

 the regulations of the Government on the seal islands, and falsely 

 certifying the illegal catch of yearling male and female seals into 

 them as "the skins of male seals not under 2 years of age," it was 

 their sworn duty to have investigated into that fraud at once. 



They did not; they shirked the responsibility; first, as Mr. Straus 

 did, and who threw it upon an advisory board of ''scientists," who, 

 in turn, shamefully failed to do their duty m the premises, and who 

 also found that Secretary Nagel wanted them to shield those men 

 who had been guilty of that criminal trespass upon the fur-seal herd 

 of Alaska. Having found this spirit of Nagel, these scientists weakly 

 and miproperly allowed their names to be used by Nagel as his justi- 

 fication, or "high scientific" authority for continuing that fraudulent 

 killing. 



Observe the manner in which Charles Nagel uses these "scientists" 

 as "experts" to justify his ruinous and illegal slaughter of the year- 

 ling male and female seals annually. When taxed with this crime, 

 he says to Senator Dixon, Chairman Senate Committee on Conserva- 

 tion of National Resources: 



The Chairman. You may proceed. 



Mr. Elliott. Here is something that will interest you, because politicians and 

 lawyers have a regard for "scientists" that is really unduly exalted. Most scientists 

 are not as wise as some people wiser than they are, seem to think they are. Here is 

 a letter from Secretary Charles Nagel in answer to an inquiry by the Committee on 

 Conservation of National Resources as to his authority for his work of killing fur seals 

 on the Pribilof Islands in violation of law and rules, and who puts this killing as done 

 squarely upon Jordan, Stejneger, Merriam, et al.: 



(Copy.) 



Department of Commerce and Labor, 



Office of the Secretary, 

 Washington, January 14, 1911. 



My Dear Senator: I have your communication of the 12th instant inclosing Sen- 

 ate bill No. 9959 to amend an act entitled "An act to protect the seal fisheries of 

 Alaska, and for other purposes." 



The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period 

 of five years from and after the 1st day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your 

 committee last year I have had some occasion to coiLsider this question with the 

 result that the impressions then expressed have, if anything, been strengthened. 



Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any 

 sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it is 

 now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me 

 to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number of 

 female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male 

 seals killed by the Government. If that be true, one and perhaps the chief argu- 

 ment which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation. 



However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso- 

 lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure 

 neces.sary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per- 

 centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am 

 relying upon the advice of experts who have been appoilited to inquire and report 

 and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion. 



I gather that a further ground has been assigned for the discontinuance of seal 

 killing, namely, that such discontinuance would be received by foreign coimtriea 

 as proof of our disinterestedness, and that such a course would serve to promote the 

 consummation of treaties to prohibit pelagic sealing. If this were so, I should, of 

 course, advocate the discontinuance, but I have no intimation from the State Depart- 

 ment that such a course on our part would have the olightest bearing upon pending 



