FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



239 



stated. During the interval which must 

 elapse before that time a steady decrease 

 in bulls will be encountered, the closest 

 killing on land occurred during the sea- 

 sons of 1902 and 1908. In the latter sea- 

 son the lessees released from the drives on 

 St. Paul only 983 small seals. This prac- 

 tical annihilation of bachelors for this year 

 will be felt on the rookeries four years 

 thereafter, or in 1907. 



Since we are obliged to face in 1906 and 

 1907 this extra heavy decrease occurring 

 from the closer killing in 1902 and 1903. 

 no reduction in the number of bachelors 

 now saved on the islands should be made 

 until the rookeries themselves show an 

 influx of male life sufficient to more than 

 offset th? yearly mortalitv. (Report 

 W. I. Lembkey, Oct. 26, 1905, to Sec'y 

 Com. and Labor; Appendix A, p. 175, H. 

 Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 

 24, 1911.) 



Lembkey's assistant, Judge, de- 

 clares that the seal question was 

 completely mastered and under- 

 stood by Hitchcock when those 

 "regulations" were prepared. 



[The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, retrans- 

 fer of the Alaskan seal service to the Bureau of 

 Fisheries, by James Judge, assistant agent, Seal 

 Islands.] 



* * * * 



It is to be observed that Hon. Frank 

 H. Hitchcock, when connected with the 

 Department of Commerce and Labor, had 

 charge under the Secretary of the sealing 

 business; that he made an exhaustive 

 examination of all the questions affectmg 

 the seal life; that, as before stated herein, 

 he prepared the regulations under which 

 the business is now conducted. 



* * * * 

 Mr. Hitchcock's knowledge of the seal 



life was so perfect and his mastery of the 

 seal question was so complete that the 

 President remitted the subject to his 

 supervision and control even after he 

 became First Assistant Postmaster Gen- 

 eral. It is earnestly recommended that 

 if the reasons assigned in the foregoing 

 statements are not deemed sufficient that 

 Mr. Hitchcock's knowledge of the subject 

 be availed of. 



Respectfully submitted. 



Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief clerk 

 then? 



Mr. Lembkey. I ]iresume Mr. Bowen 

 was. 



Mr. Elliott. And you again made the 

 recommendation ? 



Mr. Lembkey. Not to Mr. Powen; no. 

 The recommendation was made, I think, 

 to the Secretary, Init it was made through 

 Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, 

 who then had charge of the seal business. 



Mr. Elliott. Oh, he took charge of it? 

 Had you in 1904 any table of length, 

 weight, and measurement of fur seals to 

 contradict the official tables that declared 

 a fur seal 2 years of age, the skin of which 

 weighed 5^ pounds? Had you any rec- 

 ords to show Mr. Bowen or Mr. Hitch- 

 cock? 



Ml. Lembkey. 1906 is when we re- 

 duced the weight from 5^ pounds to 5 

 pounds. Please get that correct. 



Mr. Elliott. But in 1904 you made 

 that recommendation? 



Mr. Lembkey. To Mr. Hitchcock. 



Mr. Elliott. Have you any table 

 weight measurement of your own making 

 which warranted you in making that rec- 

 ommendation? 



Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I expressed 

 that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 

 449-450, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 

 Dept. Com. and T-abor.) 



But Lembkey just changed 

 them as best in his "opinion" — 

 with no warrant for that opinion 

 either. [The seal contractor's 

 "opinion," too.] 



Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, when you 

 made that statement in 1901, you went to 

 Mr. Hitchcock and recommended a 5- 

 pound limit. V.'hat did he tell you in 

 1904? 



Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember just 

 what he did tell me, xMr. Elliott. 



Mr. Elliott. Did he not tell you that 

 you were taking yearling skins? 



Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; he told me that 

 you had made the charge that we were 

 taking yearling skins. 



Mr. Elliott. Was he not impressed 

 with the fact that you were taking year- 

 ling skins? 



Mr. Lembkey. No; he was not. 



Mr. Elliott. Yet he fixed the limit 

 5^ pounds? 



Mr. Lembkey. He did it solely as I 

 have stated — to place the limit so high 

 that you nor any other man could make any 

 objection to the policy of the department. 



Mr. Elliott. That was very correct on 

 his part, was it not? 



* * * * 



Mr. Elliott. When Mr. Hitchcock left 

 the department who succeeded him? 



