22 FUR SEALS OF ALASKA. 
United States Government. Their conclusion has been opposed to 
suspending the killing on land and in favor of stopping pelagic seal- 
ing. They have maintained that the killing on land was a necessity in 
order to preserve the herd in good condition, and that the destruction 
was the result of pelagic sealing, and pelagic sealing alone. That is 
the distinction, that is the difference, between the position of the Gov- 
ernment in all of its international controversies with Great Britain and 
in all of its negotiations with that country on this subject, and the 
position taken by Mr. Elliott since 1890. 
The tribunal of arbitration sustained the contention of the United 
States. I repeat, if you pass this act you not only repudiate the 
foundation upon which our negotiations have always rested with Great 
Britain, but you also deny the correctness of the decision of the tri- 
bunal of arbitration, which rests upon the evidence introduced by our 
own Government. 
Mr. Exurorr. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the gentleman wants to 
misrepresent me. 
Mr. Fautxner. Not at all. 
The Crareman. I think you had better wait, Mr. Elliott. 
Mr. Fautxner. 1 am perfectly willing 
The Cuairman. Iam not. There is no objection to any member of 
the committee asking questions, but I think any one outside had better 
wait until Senator Faulkner closes his statement. 
Mr. Watson. Do you mean in the seal business the law of natural 
selection is set aside and that nature has made a mistake in apportion- 
ing the number of males and females, so that man must intervene to 
perpetuate the species? 
Mr. Fautkner. I mean that with the exception of Mr. Elliott there 
is not a scientist that I have been able to hear of or who I have been 
able to talk to who does not maintain that in order to preserve the herd 
in the best possible condition it is essential that the surplus male life 
shall annually be killed, and I will refer to the authorities I rely upon 
inafew moments. Anyone who will study the work of Professor Jor- 
dan (he can in one night almost read the condensed first volume of that 
report) and see the authorities he relies upon will be convinced on this 
question. I am not surprised that the professor (Professor Elliott) 
laughs at that. He says his (Elliott’s) report to the Smithsonian Insti- 
tution has stood without question. Gentlemen, if you will just take 
the report of Jordan and read five or six pages on Elliott’s method of 
estimating the number of seals on the islands, you will he convinced 
that in his estimate he exceeded the number of seals there by at least 
1,400,000. 
Take up the report of Captain Mosher, of the United States Navy, 
who examines carefully Elliott’s method of estimating numbers, that 
by surveying the rookeries ascertain the number of square feet in each 
and then estimate the number of square feet that would be oceupied 
by each seal, you can determine this number. 
Mr. Elliott gives in his report the estimate that 2 square feet is suf- 
ficient. The lowest estimate by any other expert, and that is reached 
by compromise, is 22 or 23 feet. Captain Mosher says: 
I can not even fit his coast line, let alone his rookery lines, with his maps. 
They are absolutely a misfit. They are of no value, they are not 
measurements, they are simply sketches. That is his value of Elliott’s 
method of calculation in ascertaining the number of seals. His entire 
