20 FUR SEALS OF ALASKA. 
The motion was based on a newspaper statement of a letter addressed 
by Mr. Elliott to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he conveyed 
that report to him, and in which he gave a brief outline of the sub- 
stance of the report, and was published in a paper of Cleveland, Ohio. 
The position taken by the counsel of Great Britain was resisted by 
the attorneys of the United States, but the tribunal of arbitration 
decided that it was a proper paper under the second clause of the treaty 
to be demanded by Great Britain from the United States, and it was 
subsequently placed before the tribunal. 
I think, in justice to this Government, that these facts should be 
stated, all of which can be verified by a reference to the proceedings of 
the tribunal of arbitration. 
Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as rather surprising, when we come to 
look at the character of this bill or joint resolution, that it is proposed 
by its author under the idea that it is necessary to preserve the seal 
herd, and all killing by the company must cease, and yet, with that as 
the ostensible purpose of this resolution (and I have no doubt it is the 
real reason of the gentleman who introduced it), we find that this Gov- 
ernment is authorized to continue the killing on those islands. Although 
the joint resolution says we will stop the killing and abrogate, rescind, 
and annul the contract made between the Government, at its invita- 
tion, and the North American Commercial Company, yet in the judg- 
ment of Congress we should proceed to have 5,50G seals killed annu- 
ally; that those skins should be taken by the Government, sold by the 
Government, and the money covered into the Treasury. Now, if it 
preserve the seal herd by reducing the number 5,500 annually, what 
is the reason or necessity for abrogation or rescinding the contract by 
this act? 
If Congress has the power to annul or rescind the contract, then it 
has the power to state to the Secretary having charge of this subject 
that under the provisions of the terms of that contract without annul- 
ling its provisions, but in accordance with its expressed terms you are 
directed to limit the number of seals killed on the islands annually, or 
for the number of years you may desire, to 5,500 skins. 
That direction would accomplish the object and purpose of this reso- 
lution without a breach of faith on the part of the Government in an 
attempt to annul the contract. It would act then in accordance with 
a construction the Department had placed on the contract and the 
mouth of the lessee would be closed. 
Now, it can not be said that the taking of seals is different under the 
authority of the lessees from the taking under the Government by its 
agents, for there is not a single seal killed under the regulations of the 
Department as they exist to-day, not one, that is not killed in the pres- 
ence of an agent of the Government put there for the purpose of see- 
ing that every regulation is carried out. I repeat, if that is not a cor- 
rect position, I can not understand the object of this legislation. 
If you are going to take the position that by reason of a national 
question which is involved, that because of a national policy that must 
be carried out in reference to this industry, you deem it wiser to abro- 
gate the contract which you have invited a citizen to make, then, 1 say, 
the exercise of the same principles of sovereignty which you appeal 
to as authorizing you to annul this contract for the benefit of the gen- 
eral public, should be appplied that controls in the exercise of the sov- 
ereign right of eminent domain, and that all the property upon these 
