68 PUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



and report. It appears to be a fact that the sales of skins from our islands have shown 

 the slaughter of many yearling and pup seals, contrary to law. Now, who is to blame 

 for 'pennitting that slaughter? 



I will also point out to you that the report of the total number of seals surviving 

 last year, as made to you by Mr. Clark and published by you, is manifestly erroneous 

 and absurd in that it reports a number of living seals far in excess of existing facts. 

 At present I will do no more than draw you attention to the fact (officially published) 

 that on December 17, 1903, Mr. Walter I. Lembkey declared to his chief in the Depart- 

 ment of Commerce and Labor (Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock), in the presence of Mr. 

 Henry W. Elliott, "that at the close of the season of 1903, August 1, the whole num- 

 ber of fur seals alive then on the Pribilof Islands was not to exceed 150,000.''^ 



Now, Mr. Secretary, I ask you: Where is the man of intelligence who will have 

 the hardihood to say that the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, harried constantly, as 

 they have been by a powerful fleet of pelagic sealers, have not decreased more than 

 10 per cent since December, 1903? Look at the London market reports of the annual 

 catches of the pelagic sealers of "Alaskan" seals; consider that according to your 

 own Mr. Lembkey two seals are killed and lost for every one killed and secured by 

 the pelagic sealers; then decide whether you think the total number of seals has not 

 enormously decreased during the past seven years. And yet your Mr. Clark has 

 officially reported to his chief that the seals on the islands "now number le.?s than 

 140,000" (see your annual report). Why should "140,000" be suggested, when the 

 real figure can hardly be one-half i\v3iil W^as it not to deceive you into thinking that 

 the number so deftly suggested is approximately the real number living? I i^laim that 

 it was. 



W^ho is there that will go before the American people and assert that there are now 

 more than 60,000 seals belonging to our islands, except the men who wish to make a 

 living by killing them? That there were only 14,336 killable seals on the islands 

 last year, when 15, 000 were desired, is very significant. 



We are now at the parting of the ways; for I see clearly that you and the Camp Fire 

 Club of America do not agree on any one essential point. We. shall feel it our duty 

 to appeal to the President, asking him to take the responsibility of directing a sup- 

 pression of hostilities by your department. We shall tell him that when you were 

 before Senator Dixon's" committee that committee unsuspectingly approved your 

 bill (clothing yourself with most absolute powers) in the belief that no seals were to 

 be killed by your orders in the immediate future. Fortunately, it was first promised 

 that you sliould have $100,000 for the purchase of the effects of tlie North American 

 Commercial Co. Then it was pointed out that if no seals were killed and no wages 

 paid the natives therefor the entire support of the natives must be provided by 

 Congress. 



As you will undoubtedly remember, and as the records will show, tliere exists 

 abundant documentary proof of this fact. It was your Mr. Lembkey who then said: 

 "Well, gentlemen, if there is to be no seal killing then we will need a larger appro- 

 priation to enable us to take care of those natives." Thereupon some one finally pro- 

 posed $50,000 as the additional amoimt necessary for the support of the natives because 

 no seals were to bo killed by tliem, and they would receive no wages as they hereto- 

 fore have done. The $100,000 you originally pro))Osed was then and there increased 

 to $150,000 for that purpose. It was appropriated by Congress, promptly and cheer- 

 fullv, and you have it to-dav. 



But the unquestionable "gentleman's understanding" on which that extra $50,000 

 was granted you does not rest on my memory, nor even upon the stenographic report 

 of the hearing before the Senate Committee on Conservation. 'WTiat the committee 

 expected of you and the purpose of that extra $50,000 was clinched on the floor of the 

 Senate by Chairman Dixon in the following words, explaining to Senator Hale why 

 your appropriation was to be so large as $150,000: 



"But in the meantime, if we put into effect the closed season, these Indians will be 

 living on the islands with nothing to live upon, with no physicians or schools; and in 

 view of their su])port and maintenance temporarily, until the killing again takes place, 

 the Secretary felt that the Government should make some provision to take care of 

 them in the meantime." (Congressional Record, Mar. 23, 1910, p. 3655.) 



The "Secretary" referred to was Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and 

 Labor, who, with $50,000 to his credit especially to enable him to raaintain 300 natives 

 without paying them wages for butchering seals, now calmly proposes to accept the 

 advice of the evil genius of the fur seal, and go right on with killing operations. 



As indisputable' evidence I will attach to this letter a portion of the Congressional 

 Record containing Senator Dixon's exact language. 



Now, what was the intention of President William H. Taft, when he penned his 

 special message to Congress in behalf of the fur seal? Here are his exact words, as 

 published in Senate Document No. 430, March 15. 



