FUE-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 51 



In tlie second place, I can not conceive of any way whereby the rook- 

 eries might be divided to enable two companies to operate. If you 

 would lease one rookery to one company and another to another com- 

 pany, then you come in contact with the people's interest, because I can 

 not conceive of a plan whereby these people can work for two compa- 

 nies at the same time and divide the money of two companies at the 

 Slime time. It would undoubtedly be to the detriment of tiie rookeries. 

 1 believe the present caie of the rookeries, in fact the condition of the 

 rookeries at this time, would justify any one in making the assertion that 

 these rookeries are in better condition to-day by far than they were 

 twenty years ago, and it is tlie result of prudent, judicious care which 

 has been given them that has placed them in that condition. 



Q. You mean to say there must be absolute harmony of management 

 and control in order to preserve seal life ^ — A. Yes, sir; and they must 

 not be molested unnecessarily, either. Now I will tell you another 

 reason why. If you have one or more companies, suppose you lease a 

 rookery to each company or different companies. That company would 

 drive these rookeries every day in order to get its (piota of seal, and in 

 that way they would drive the seal off and they would leave the rookery 

 and go somewhere else. The policy of the Alaska Commercial Com- 

 pany is not to drive the same rookery more ihan once in three days or 

 once a week. They have four rookeries on St. George and I do not 

 remember how many on St. Paul ; so they do not drive more than 

 once in three or four days and sometimes one rookery would not be 

 driven more than once a week. 



If a company had but one rookery alone it would drive it every day, 

 which they would be obliged to do in order to get their number of seal; 

 but sometimes it is necessary for the company to do this, and when the 

 company finds the rookery is being molested too frequently they will 

 leave that rookery a week or ten days, going to rookeries that have a 

 larger number of seal in order to give them an opportunity to recuper- 

 ate aiul get back to the former condition, and for that reason alone, if 

 for no other reason, I do not believe it would be a prudent and a judi- 

 cious i)olicy to change the jiresent one of leasing these islands. You 

 may call it a monopoly, and in fact it is a monopoly. The Alaska Com- 

 mercial Company have a monopoly of the seal business and so would 

 any other company have a monopoly of it; but if you want to destroy 

 the life of the seal, I know of no better method of doing it than that of 

 leasing it to more than one company for the reasons I have stated. 

 That is my candid judgment. I am not interested in any company or 

 individual in any way, shape, or form, and that is prompted by my own 

 observation. 



Q. What would you think of throwing it open to the general pub- 

 lic? — A. That would ruin it in two years by destroying the seal. It 

 will do it in two years, if not in a year. That would be suicidal, fool- 

 hardy — such a policy as that. I believe that inasmuch as in one sense 

 of the word it is a monopoly, I believe it would be prudent to open the 

 islands, after the expiration of this term of the lease, to the highest bid- 

 der in some way by act of Congress, and the same restrictions should 

 be thrown around the islands that they have around them now, and 

 there are some restrictions that ougiit to be thrown around if a new 

 company goes there, because a new company will be inexperienced in a 

 good many things and there are a great many things done by the Alaska 

 company which a new company would not tliink of unless they tamiliar- 

 ized themselves with it before they took charge; but I think the present 

 laws are safe, so far as the Alaska Commercial Company is coucerued, 



