FUR SEALS OF ALASKA. 17 
and the employment of agents that the company has to have to transact 
its business. Further, you must reduce this gross profit by deducting 
the cost of the support of the indigent and the orphans, which burden, 
under the contract, falls upon the. company. 
In addition to these liabilities assumed under the contract or incident 
to the business, the company found it necessary to establish at Dutch 
Harbor a basis of supplies for coal, water, and supplies. You will 
yemember there are no harbors or docks at the islands. At a cost of 
$200,000 this plant was established. Its location and supplies have 
been of great convenience to the United States. It has furnished coal, 
water, and supplies to Government ships and to the merchant marine 
of the United States since the company has been the lessee under this 
contract. With these facts in your possession I desire to direct your 
attention to the provisions of this joint resolution. The measure abro- 
gates this contract. No fault is alleged for this action by reason of 
any act done or left undone by the company. I ask, Is it fair and 
just to annul this contract by the exercise of the power of the sover- 
eign? Is it just and right that this company should be left without 
any remedy for the loss of the plant it has on the island, for the stores 
it has taken there in the belief of the permanency of its contract? 
Would such action between man and man be just and right? If you 
determine to abrogate this contract, has not the company the right to 
say to its representative, ‘“‘In your action be fair, be just, be equita- 
ble?” Ifa national necessity or public policy requir es the abrogation 
of this contract and compels you to disregard the rights of a citizen 
under a contract which you have freely and voluntarily entered into, 
should you not provide in the same measure a remedy the pr ovisions 
of which will protect and guard the interests and preserve the rights 
of this company 4 
This suggestion rests upon a fundamental principle that Congress 
will os ignore. Let us take up this joint resolution. I assert you 
Mr. "Vena, of Mis apek Do you deny that the company has 
been killing any seals under 1 year old? 
Mr. Fautxner. 1 do deny it most emphatically. The evidence to 
disprove it was furnished by Mr. Elliott when he gave you the weight 
of the skins taken, showing that they were of seals over 1 year of age. 
The paper he read showed that they were yearlings. The 5- -pound 
sealskins are yearlings. You can appreciate that fact when the com- 
pany is paying $10.22 per skin to the Government out of a gross reve- 
nue of $22.31 per skin, that after you deduct the incidental expenses, 
the cost of curing the skins, the transportation to London, all of which 
can not aggregate less than $6 per skin, it could not afford to take infe- 
rior or small pup skins. You must remember when you say a yearling 
you mean every seal that is 1 year and less than 2 years old. When it 
becomes 2 year's old it is called a 2-year old. The company takes only 
the larger seals over 1 year and under 5. It is in the power of the 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, under the contract, to fix by his 
regulations, if it is deemed wise, that the age limit shall be 2 years or 
3 years, if necessary to the preservation of the herd, and this com- 
pany would be estopped to complain; as it has agreed to abide by the 
regulations that the Department may promulgate. 
Gentlemen, I desire to suggest for your consideration the unwisdom 
