234 rUE-SEAL FISHERIES OF ALASKA 



Q. If seals are continned to be killed in as large numbers as they 

 have been while you have been there, what is your opinion as to the 

 future effect upon the business f — A. If they are protected on the islands 

 and hunters excluded from the Bering Sea, I do not think there is any 

 danger of extermination. 



Q. You think the supply would coutinue about as it is now ? — A. 

 Yes, sir ; I should judge so. 



Q. Gould an increased number be taken ?— A. Certainly, if they are 

 protected in the water. 



Q. What would be a fair estimate of the number taken during the 

 past year by these trespassers? — A. The number, I think, varies con- 

 siderably. In 1887 I estimated the number to be about 40,000. This 

 last season the number was about 25,000 or 26,000. There were not as 

 many vessels there as during the previous year. I understand that a 

 large number of vessels are being fitted out at the present time with 

 the intention of going into the sea next season unless some measures 

 are taken by the Government to prevent it. 



Q. What do you suggest that the Government should do to protect 

 these seal fisheries from these outrages ? — A. If the President or the 

 Secretary of the Treasury should issue a proclamation prohibiting the 

 taking of fur seals in Bering Sea, and enforce the law as it was enforced 

 in 1887, I think that would be sufficient. 



Q. What is the necessity of issuing a proclamation ? Is it not gen- 

 erally understood that it is unlawful ? — A. It is not so admitted. Many 

 claim that Bering Sea is an open sea, and say that the United States 

 have no jurisdiction there. 



Q. Noexclusive jurisdiction ? — A. Noexclusive jurisdiction, and many 

 of the captains of the vessels said that if they had known it was unlaw- 

 ful they would not have gone into the sea. 



Q. You believe that if this proclamation were issued a great many 

 would respect it, and would not go there f — A. Y'es, sir; it would be 

 necessary to issue a proclamation, and send a vessel there, and make 

 it dangerous for vessels to go there for the purpose of taking fur seals. 



Q. Allowing that to be the case, and supposing the Secretary would 

 issue such a i)roclamation, would it be necessary to have a revenue- 

 cutter there ? — A. Yes, sir j one cutter would be sufficient. 



Q. Onefor the entile islands'? —A. One in the sea would be sufficient. 

 It has been customary to send two vessels each year. One starts in 

 May and remains until the second one arrives, about the middle of June, 

 and then the first one goes into Arctic Ocean to look after the whalers. 

 They return to San Francisco about the first of October. 



Q. Were any of these vessels that were taken foreign vessels ? — A. 

 Yes, sir ; five of the vessels that I captured were British vessels. 



Q. Were they condemned in court ? — A. Yes, sir ; they were con- 

 demned in court at Sitka. 



Q. Were you there ? — A. Yes, sir. 



Q. Was there any question raised by them as to their right to go into 

 Bering Sea on the ground that it was an open sea? — A. Yes, sir ; there 

 was a lawyer from Victoria, B. C., who entered a protest against the 

 proceedings. 



Q. And the claim was overruled ? — A. Yes, sir. 



Q. When did this occur ?— A. First in 1886, I think. Captain Abbey 

 made those seizures. And again in 1S87. 



Q. You think a proclamation should be issued annually ? — A. Yes, 

 sir ; I think it advisable to keep it before the eyes of the public and give 

 them to understand tluit it will be enforced. 



