368 ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 



I venture to also suggest that if the naturalist selected by the British Government 

 could come to Washington on his way to Alaska and have a free and full conference 

 with Assistant Secretary Hamlin the objects of his mission would probably be 

 greatly promoted. 



I avail myslf, etc., RICHARD OLNEY. 



His Excellency the Right Honorable Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTB. 



MAY 5, 1896. 



SIB: I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of April 29 inclos- 

 ing copy of a note received by you from the British ambassador at this 

 capital, and also a copy of your answer thereto. 



In the note of the British ambassador it is stated that the whole 

 catch taken from the Alaskan herd, including the land catch on the 

 Pribilof Islands for the years 1894 and 1895, was, 71,716 and 71,300, 

 respectively. While this statement is substantially correct for the 

 year 1895, it would appear that in the year 1894 a large number was 

 taken, namely, 76,87161,838 at sea, and 15,033 on the Islands. 



The further statement is made in said letter that the fur seals show 

 no apparent diminution in numbers, and attention is called to the fact 

 that the sealing vessels in Bering Sea made practically as large catches 

 during the season of 1895 as in that of 1894, which fact the ambassador 

 contends does not point to the immediate extermination of the fur-seal 

 herd. The fact, however, that the seals on the islands have decreased 

 at least one-half since 1890 would seem to answer this claim. A 

 further answer will also be found in the report of the Secretary of the 

 Treasury for 1895, on page cc, wherein it appears that the average 

 catch per vessel on the Northwest Coast fell off 5 per cent in 1895 as 

 compared with 1894, while the average catch in Bering Sea fell off 12 

 per cent as compared with 1894. At the same time, while the percent- 

 ages of females killed in Bering Sea were the same for British vessels 

 in 1894 and 1895, there was an increase from 69 to 73 per cent for 

 American vessels in 1895. That the seal catch is maintained at the 

 figures cited is because of the fact that Bering Sea is a nursery for 

 the herd while it is on the islands, and of the further fact that the seals 

 can be killed easier while in Bering Sea than when traveling off the 

 Pacific Coast toward the islands. 



The statement of the ambassador that the total land and sea catch 

 from the Alaskan herd in 1895 was only about one-half of what the 

 same was in 1889 would seem to be a further convincing argument as 

 to the decrease in the seal herd. In this connection I would state that 

 in 1889 the catch on land and sea was about 132,000, of which 102,000 

 were taken on the Pribilof Islands and 30,000 at sea, the pelagic catch 

 being about 22 per cent of the total. In 1895, on the other hand, the 

 pelagic catch, 56,291, had increased to 78 per cent of the total, 71,291. 

 From 1880 to 1895 the pelagic catch increased from about 8,000 to 

 56,000, or 600 per cent, while the Pribilof Islands catch decreased from 

 105,000 to 15,000, or 86 per cent. 



It is stated also in said letter that it would now be too late to give 

 effective warning of any change in the regulations, and that vessels 

 which have cleared already for the Japanese Coast would be seriously 

 injured by any change at this late date. I have the honor, however, 

 to call your attention to the facfr that the modus vivendi of 1891 was 

 agreed upon as late as June 15. 

 Kespectfully, yours, 



S. WIKE, Acting Secretary* 



The SECBETABY OF STATE. 



