I]STVESTIGATION OP THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 133 



III. That weight list ot Lembkey is the certified proof of this 

 illegal killing, and it shows exactly how this work of loading the green 

 skins with blubber so as to deceive as to (weight of) size of skin ever 

 since 1896 — how it has been done on the islands by the lessees with 

 the aid of the agents of the Government, year after year, since then, 

 ud to date. 



Mr. Young. In this hearing, volume 3, page 131, there seems to be a statement or 

 a report sent out by the London agent, dated the 19th of November, 1910, as to the 

 salted fur-seal skins for the account of the United States Government. That state- 

 ment seems to be arranged altogether on the basis of weights. 



Mr. Elliott. But that is simply in response to an inquiry from the bureau. They 

 do not classify them according to the bureau's direction. They classify these skins by 

 measurement. The bureau asked for the weights, and they sent them the weights; 

 but they do not classify them by weights. They would be laughed out of court 

 and would lose their standing if they undertook to classify them by weight. You 

 never know what skinners and salters will do with the weights, but they can not 

 trifle with the measurements. They can not change the measurements; but they 

 can "load" them with weight of blubber and salt anywhere from 1£ to 3 pounds. I 

 have seen it done. Did I not see this man. in 1890, grin and smile about how he was 

 fixing his skins to increase their weight; but the laugh was on him when the Lamp- 

 son's returns came in. (Hearing No. 4, p. 223, July 11, 1911. House Committee on 

 Expenditures. Department of Commerce and Labor.) 



Lembkey swears that the skin of a yearling fur seal is 36£ inches 

 long, to wit. 



Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its 

 nose to the tip of its tail? 



Mr. Lembkey. No, sir, not off-hand. 



Mr. Elliott. You never measured one? 



Mr. Lembkey. Oh, yes, I have measured one. 



Mr. Elliott. Have you no record of it? 



Mr. Lembkey. I have a record of it here. 



Mr. Elliott. What is its length? 



Mr. Lembkey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be, from the 

 tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 39£ inches in one instance and 39£ in another 

 instance. 



Mr. Elliott. Yes. 



Mr. Lembkey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three. 



Mr. Elliott. Yes. 



Mr. Lembkey. All right. 



Mr. Elliott. When you take a skin off of that yearling seal, how much of that 

 skin do you leave on there? 



Mr. Lembkey. You do not leave very much on the tail end there [indicating]; 

 not nearly so much as your sketch would show. 



Mr. Elliott. It does not matter. 



Mr. Lembkey. We leave about 3 inches, perhaps, on the head. 



Mr. Elliott. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken 

 the skin off? 



The Chairman. How much skin is left after you have taken it off? 



Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain amount 

 is left on. 



Mr. Lembkey. I stated about 3 inches. 



Mr. Elliott. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long. 



Mr. Lembkey. No; if it was 39£ inches long it would leave it 36£ inches. That is, 

 all the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 39£ inches long. 

 Three inches off that would leave 3C| inches. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 442, 443, Apr. 

 13, 1912. House Committee on Expenditures, Department of Commerce and Labor.) 



Out of the foregoing exhibit of 400 skins taken by Mr. Lembkey, 

 July 7, 1913, 261 of them are not over 36£ inches in length, or are 

 yearling skins of his identification and measurement- 



