70' PUR-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA. 



Q. What vessels went there, and what for "? — A. And if auy other 

 vessel went in there it should be liable to a fine and seizure. I under- 

 stand now that any vessel taking liquor into that country has to give 

 bond not to sell it to the natives in that country, and if they take fire- 

 arms on board they have to give bond not to sell the natives a gun. 



Q. They are also required to give bond that they will not sell fire- 

 arms to the natives? — A. Yes, sir. 



Q. I do not understand whether it is our regulation or a Eussiau reg- 

 ulation. — A. It is ours, because on the seal islands when tbe company 

 wish to take breech-loatling fire-arms they are required to get a permit 

 from some department to land them there. And I know tbat medical 

 stores that are taken up there on the islands are taken by a permit. I 

 think if all vessels were obliged to enter at Oonalaska they conld be 

 accounted for, and then the revenue-cutter would know how many ves- 

 sels were in the waters, what their business was, and then if there is a 

 regulation that any vessel taken there with a sealskin was liable to con- 

 fiscation, of course it would deter any parties from hunting seals. 



Q. If they were- required to give bond to observe the laws of the 

 United States in any respect, would not that be important f — A. It is 

 so. There is no question now but tbat certain vessels come into Bering 

 Sea and carry up breech-loading arms and liqnors and trade with the na- 

 tives in those settlements np along Bering Straits in the Yukon district. 



Q, If under the law of nations and the treaty between tbe United 

 States and Great Britain this is a closed sea, and if under that treaty 

 and the laws of nations the United States has absolutely and complete 

 dominion and jurisdiction over that part of tbe Bering Sea that is 

 within tbe territory ceded to the United States, would it be a wise 

 thing for us to abandon any portion of that jurisdiction and open that 

 as a high sea to all nations or not? Would it be a wise policy? — A. It 

 would be very unwise as far as the seal fisb erics are concerned. These 

 are to be protected as a si)ecial interest if for no other reason. 



Q. Now, for instance, in regard to the salmon, cod, and halibut fish- 

 eries, would it be a wis6 policy to open those and the seal fisheries to 

 all nations ? — A. It would be very unwise to allow any nation to disturb 

 the seal. As far as tbe salmon is concerned, I think that tbe idea of 

 establishing a limit is a strong claim on our protection, because a 3' mile 

 loff limit would be sufficient. 



Q. You are aware of the fact that the United States is about the only 

 country that has no law prohibiting foreigners from fishing within the 

 3-mile limit? — A. So I understand. 



Q. The Spaniards have been fisbing on the coast of Florida, and com- 

 plaint has been made here. I think a seizure was made within a year 

 or two. In the absence of a law prohibiting coast fisbing, the salmon 

 fisheries then would be liable to be depredated upon, would they not? — 

 A. I am not well posted on the salmon fisheries, and I tbink they are 

 taken mostly within the mouths of rivers and up the rivers, and not out 

 in the seas or bays. 



Q. I do not know that we have any law prohibiting foreigners from 

 fishing in our rivers, unless it is a local law of the State for the protec- 

 tion of game and fish. There is no law of the Government in regard to 



it? — A. In my opinion unless there is 



Q. The States themselves protect the fishing within the State. What 

 is your judgment generally as to opening tbat sea to the use of inhab- 

 itants of the whole world as any other high sea? — A. As regards its ef- 

 fect upon the seal fislieries'? 



Q. Yes ; and upon our interests generally.— A. I think it w^ould be 



