FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 59 



that he had not been specific enough, and to put Mr. Nagel beyond 

 doubt as to his meanmg, Elliott again addressed Nagel as follows : 



Lakewood, Ohio, May 9, 1910. 

 Hon. Charles Nagel, 



Secretary Covimerce and Labor. 

 Dear Sir: The reason why a new and competent audit of (he seal-island books must 

 be made in your department, and why it is demanded imperatively for the public good, 

 is as follows, briefly stated: 



I. The law has been openly violated on the killing grounds of the islands, and the 

 terms of the lease ignored by the lessees thereof at frequent intervals, and repeatedly, 

 from July 17, 1890, up to the close of the season of 1909. TMs violation of the law 

 and the contract has been chiefly by the act of killing female and yearling male seals; 

 said killings have not been in negligible numbers, but have run up into the tens of 

 thousands of female and yearling male seals. 



II. This illegal and improper killing has been ordered by the lessees, and falsely 

 certified mto your de])artment as the taking of male seals according to law and the 

 rules of your department. 



III. The full and complete proof of this illegal killing as specified above exists on 

 the islands and in the records of the sales of those skins. Any competent and honest 

 auditor of those records will lay them open and so disclose the truth of those charges 

 as made in Items I and II. 



Very truly, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 



Giving Ml'. Nagel full tinie to answer and knowing well why he 

 did not answer, Elliott, on May 24, 1910, closed this record made as 

 above, of tunely, courteous warning to high officials of fraud practiced 

 in their names on the seal islands, by sending the following square 

 charge of the same to Charles Nagel, Secretary, to wit : 



Lakewood, Ohio, May 24, 1910. 

 Hon. Chas. Nagel, 



Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 



Dear Sir: As a good citizen and being possessed of abundant knowledge, based 

 upon indisputable fact. I addressed a letter dated December IS. 190(5, to your imme- 

 diate predecessor, Hon. Oscar Straus. In this letter to him I specified certain grave 

 and inexcusable errors of official reports made to him by his subordinates and cer- 

 tain specific acts of official malfeasance by the same, in re conduct of the public 

 business on the seal islands of Alaska. 



On the 2d of January, 1907, I received a single acknowledgment of the receipt to 

 this letter, above cited, with "thanks for the information contained " ; but taking 

 notice of the fact that in spite of the indisputable truth of my charges and propriety 

 of prompt reform to be made by him in the premises, Mr, Straus had made no move 

 to do so, again I addressed a cautious letter May 18, 1907, to him, in which I renewed 

 those charges and request for reform. To this letter I have ne\-er recei^'ed even that 

 perfunctory acknowledgment which was the entire return for my first one. 



Of couise I know why it was not answered — that subordinate officialism was guilty 

 as indicted. It pigeonholed my letters; yet I had charity for Mr. Straus. I knew 

 how hard it is for one in his position to get at the truth, so I quietly gathered an addi- 

 tional statement of fact bearing on this guilty officialism aforesaid, and again on Decem- 

 ber 7, 1908, I addre.ssed a letter, courteously but firmly renewing my charges and 

 request that he put an end to this malfeasance specified. 



Did I receive an answer? No. Why? Because that guilty officialism again silently 

 pigeonholed my letter, since it convicted and dismissed certain officers if acted upon. 



Mr. Straus went out of office March 4, 1909. You succeeded. Knowing that you 

 could not have any definite knowledge of this fur-seal business under your direction, 

 except as you gathered it from this same guilty officialism aforesaid, I addressed you 

 in turn a letter dated April 26, 1909, exposing that malfeasance under your hand. On 

 the 29th following your perfunctory acknowledgment of its receipt came to me. 



But to this day no attempt has been made since by you to answer its grave, explicit, 

 and indisputable charges of official malfeasance on the part of your subordinates. Of 

 course there is good reason for this silence on the part of that officialism thus indicted. 

 It is guilty. But yet what are you sworn to do in the premises? 



On the 9th instant I have addressed to you a final brief of this malfeasance on the 

 part of your seal-island subordinates. Will continued silence on your part vindicate 

 them? 



Very truly, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 



