COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 233 



Summary op British Reply. 



The supervision and control of the lessees of the Pribyloff Islands by the Govern- 

 ment Agents of the United States has thronghont been lax and inef3Qcient, and 

 not snch as to afford proper safeguards to seal life npon the islands. Mr. Bout- 

 well, Secretary of State when the leasing of the islands to a Company was first 

 proposed, anticipated this result, and his forecast has been fully justified by 

 events. 



The fact that, though reported against from time to time, the quota of skins was 

 allowed for twenty years to stand unchanged at 100,000, is alone suflicient to 

 show that the lessees exercised an influence to the detriment of seal life upon 

 tlie islauds. 



The statement made on p. 154 of the United States Case is wholly misleading, because 

 of its omission of mention of any reports speaking of the injury resulting from 

 the taking of the allowed quota of 100,000 skins, previous to that contained in 

 Mr. Goft"s Rei)ort of 1889, after which action resulting in a reduction of this 

 quota was first taken. It is known that smaller skins were allowed by the Gov- 

 ernment Agents to be taken from year to year, at least since 1883, in order to 

 enable the quota to be filled; and this witliout any check being attempted by the 

 Government. 



Official Reports of the United States, including Reports of the Governor of Alaska, 

 with other evidence, show that the lessee Company practically exercised inde- 

 pendent control over the whole western part of the Territory of Alaska. 



The Company, in fact, controlled the Government Agents, who were in all respects 

 dependent on them. Evidence shows that wholly inexperienced men were sent 

 to the Pribyloff Islands; that they were frequently changed; and that at least 

 several of tbese Agents wei"e not furnished Avith instructions by the Government. 



The driving and killing of the seals, carried out as a rule by the "natives" of the 

 Pribyloff Islands, can further be shown to have been directly controlled by the 

 Agents of the Company, and not by those of the Government. The same con- 

 ditions existed in 1892. 



Summary of united states contentions as to methods of 

 control by government agents. 



The statements above quoted from the Case of the United 

 States are grouped in order to show the nature and amount 

 of the control claimed to have been exercised over seal 

 interests on the Pribyloff Islauds, and particularly over 

 the operations of the lessees of these islands, by the United 

 States' Government. It appears to be asserted that, though 

 certain circumstances prevented the establishment of an ^unitefi states 



efiicient control from the date of the cession of Alaska *^''*^'^' p- ^^3- 

 273 in 1867 to 1869, yet, in 1869, such control was initi- 

 ated ; that the only practicable course open to the 

 United States Government was tliat of granting an exclu- 

 sive right of sealing on the islands to a Company; that, 

 under the lease of 1870, the Government Agents have been united states 

 prohibited from being in any way connected with, or inter- Case, pp. ist-ug. 

 ested in, sealing; and that such Agents and the lessees are 

 restraints upon each other. Further, that Committees of 

 Congress have, in 1876 and 1888, investigated the opera- 

 tions of the leasing Company, and have found these to be 

 entirely satisfactory ; that the conditions of the present lease 

 (beginning in 1890), like those of the previous lease, are 

 such as to give the United States Government absolute 

 power to fix the "quota" according to the condition of the 

 rookeries; and that the handhng' of seals upon the islands 

 is carried out under the immediate supervision of tlie Gov- 

 ernment Agents, being done by the natives, who are directly 

 controlled by these Agents. 



