APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 495 
“1st, the exclusion of other parties; 2nd, the supply to the natives of such arti- 
cles as they are accustomed to use; 3rd, compensation to the natives for their labour, 
and the payment of a sufficient additional sum each year to enable them to live in 
the manner to which they have been accustomed; 4th, an equitable division of the 
value of the skins over the payments made to the natives, and the cost to the Goy- 
ernment of the United States of maintaining such force as is necessary for the pro- 
tection of the business. 
“The portion of the surplus equitably belonging to the natives might be set aside 
for the purpose of education and religious teaching, the erection of more suitable 
dwellings than they now possess, and generally for their physical, intellectual, and 
moral improvement. 
““Tf the Government were to lease the islands it would not be possible to withdraw 
entirely the military and naval forces, or to neglect a careful supervision, and the 
additional expense consequent upon retaining possession of the business of the 
islands in the hands of the Government would not be large. 
“Ordinarily, | agree in the opinion that a Government, especially one like that of 
the United States, is not adapted to the management of business; but this clearly is 
a business which cannot be left open to individual competition, and if it is to be a 
monopoly, whether profitable or otherwise, the interest of the Government is so large, 
and the expenses incident to the protection of these islands so great, that it cannot 
afford to substitute to any extent the monopoly of an individual or of a Company 
for its own lawful supervision. 
“‘Should the Government fail in the attempt to manage the business through its 
own agents, there will then be opportunity to lease the fisheries to private parties; 
but my opinion is that a larger revenue can be obtained from them by actual man- 
agement than by a lease. 
“Tn further reply to the Resolution, I have to say that the skins taken in 1868 
were removed by Messrs. Kohl, Hutchinson, and Co., the Solicitor of the Treasury 
being of the opinion that the Government had no legal anthority to detain them. 
Those taken in 1869 are upon the islands, but no decision has been made touching 
the rights of the Government. 
“Tn concluding this Report I desire to call the attention of Congress to the fact 
that it is necessary to legislate immediately so far as to provide for the business of 
the present year. The natives will commence the capture of seals about the 1st 
June. 
“Tf the islands are to be leased for the present year it should be done immediately, 
that the lessee may make provision for the business of the year. If the business of 
the present year is to be conducted by the Government, as I think it should be, what- 
ever our future policy, legislation is necessary; and I suggest that the Secretary of 
the Treasury be authorized to appoint Agents in Alaska who shall be empowered to 
superintend the capture of the seals and the curing of the skins; and that an appro- 
priation shall be made of 100,000 dollars, out of which the natives shall be paid for 
the labour performed by them, and the other expenses incident to the business met. 
“The Secretary of the Treasury should also be authorized to sell the skins at pub- 
lic auction or upon sealed proposals at San Francisco or New York, as he may deem 
most for the interest of the Government. 
“It should be observed in this connection that the Government derived no benetit 
whatever from the seal fishery of the year 1868, and that the skins taken in 1869 are, 
nominally at least, the property of two Companies, while the Government, during 
the last year, has furnished protection to the natives and the fishery, and has no 
assurance at present that it will derive any benefit whatever therefrom. 
“Tf legislation is long delayed the Lusiness of the year 1870 will be but a repetition 
of that of 1869.” 
While the Canadian contention is supported, as has been seen, by many extracts 
from the Reports of officials of the United States Government, it is apparent that 
the desire of the lessees, and indirectly that of the officials, has been to create a 
monopoly in the fur-seal industry, since in this way the market for the skins is 
largely enhanced and the value of the islands greatly increased. 
This is, no doubt, one reason for the divergent opinions entertained as to the best 
Regulations for the preservation of seal life between those who control the islands 
and those who are compelled to hunt the seals in the ocean. 
In support of the above assertion the following authorities are in point: 
Mr. Bryant, in 1869 (Senate Ex. Doe. No. 32, 41st Congress, 2nd Session), stated that 
the large number taken in 1867 and in 1868 decreased the London valuation to 3 and 
4 dollars askin. 
Mr. Moore, in a report to the Secretary of the Treasury (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 83, p. 196, 
44th Congress, Ist Session), says, when alluding to the avisability of killing more 
seals than prescribed by the Act of the 1st July, 1870: 
“It seems that the 100,000 fur-seals from our own islands, together with the 
30,000 obtained by them from the Asiatic islands, besides the scattering fur-seals 
