41 



Sioneirs" should be changed to "Magistrates". Also, two successive sections have 

 been designated as "Sec. 208". 



The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection 

 to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's 

 program. 



Sincerely, 



RlCHAED G. KlEINDIENST, 



Deputy Attorney General. 



Office of the Deputy Attobney GENEBAii, 



Washington, D.C., September 17, 1911. 

 Hon. Edward A. Gabmatz, 



Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 

 House of Representatives, 

 Washington, B.C. 



Deab Mb. Chairman : This is in response to your request for the views of the 

 Department of Justice on H.R. 6558, a bill "to protect ocean mammals from 

 being pursued, harassed, or killed ; and for other purposes." 



Title I of the bill expresses a finding by the Congress that ocean mammals 

 are being pursued, harassed, or killed both at sea and on land by hunters of 

 many nations, and that many will become rare if not extinct unless steps are taken 

 to stop their slaughter. The Congress would declare it to be the public policy of 

 the United States to protect all ocean mammals, and to negotiate with foreign 

 governments and through interested international organizations to obtain a world- 

 wide ban on their slaughter. 



Title II contains broad prohibitions with respect to the taking, transportation, 

 or possession, by any person or vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

 States, of any ocean mammals or parts of ocean mammals (defined as all seal, 

 whale, walrus, manatee or sea cow, sea otter, sea lion, polar bear, porpoise, and 

 dolphin). Exceptions would be made only for Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos 

 dwelling on the coasts of the North Pacific or Arctic oceans who would be 

 permitted to take mammals other than polar bears for their own use in accord- 

 ance with traditions, and in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the 

 Interior for municipal and other non-profit zoos and for medical and scientific 

 research. Vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States employed in .a 

 violation would be subject to forfeiture. Provision is made for issuance of 

 regulations by the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Interior, Commerce, and 

 Transportation to carry out the purposes of the title, for enforcement of the 

 title and regulations thereunder, and for a fine of not more than $5,000 or 

 imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, for the first ofEense, and of 

 not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three 

 years, or both, for subsequent offenses. 



Title III would provide for notification by the Secretary of State to the other 

 parties to the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention that the United States does not 

 intend to extend its life beyond its current termination dae in 1975, and for 

 negotiation by the Secretary of international agreements to ban all killing of 

 North Pacific Fur Seals. Interim arrangement are made for honoring treaty 

 provisions. The Pribilof Islands would be designated a National Seal Rookery 

 Preserve and Bird Sanctuary. 



The bill would repeal (section 208), Title III ("Protection of Sea Otters on the 

 High Seas") of Public Law 89-702 and (section 405), such provisions of the Fur 

 Seal Act of 1966 as are inconsistent with it. 



Provisions of the present bill are largely patterned after the legislation which 

 is to be repealed. However, tiUe III of PubUc Law 89-702 (16 U.S.C. 1171 et seq.), 

 as Its title implies, is directed specifically to the taking of sea otters on the high 

 seas, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq-) is directed largely 

 to carrying out the obligations of the United States under the North Pacific 

 Fur Seal Convention. We perceive the likelihood of some problems in determining 

 which provisions of the latter statute would be affected by the repealer language 

 of the present bill, but defer to the Departments of State, Commerce and the 

 Interior as to whether a different approach should be taken in this matter. 



The Department of Justice perceives no constitutional or other legal objec- 

 tions to enactment of this bill. However, whether the bill should be enacted 

 involves policy considerations as to which the Department defers to the 

 Departments of the Interior, Commerce and State. 



