274 INVESTIGATION" OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 



When the Hitchcock rules were first published the lessees were 

 shocked, and at once took Lembkey to task — how could he do such 

 an act ? 



Lemhkey tells them that Elliott did it — that HE was not to blame, and 

 that Elliott was the "pest" that prevented Lembkey from fully serving 

 Liebes. Under examination April 13, 1912, he testifies — 



Hearing No. 9, p. 455.1 



Mr. Elliott (reads from Lembkey 's letter to Hitchcock, May 20, 1904): 



"When I pointed out that my instructions were not discretionary, he stated that 

 he would at once protest to the department. He requested that I inform him by 

 official letter of the requirement, which I did, and, at his urgent request, inclosed a 

 copy of your letter. I have taken pains to explain to him the situation that existed 

 in Washington last winter, and that the attitude of the department is not one of hos- 

 tility to the company, but necessary to avoid sinister results." 



Mr. Lembkey. Sinister results? 



Mr. Elliott. Yes. [Reading:] 



'•'-While admitting in one breath 'a knowledge of the Elliott campaign- ' " 



You told him I did this thing, did you not? 



Mr. Lembkey. I certainly did. 



Mr. Elliott. I am glad you did. 



Mr. Lembkey. I told him that you were the greatest pest the department ever had. 



Mr. Elliott. I am glad to hear that. That is music to me. 



Before this order was made, May 1, 1904, we find Lembkey busy 

 with Jordan and working with Liebes for the illegal killing of small 

 seals. 



Lembkey tried to prevent the u 5^-pounds limit" being ordered in 

 1904, and confesses the attempt, under cross-examination to the 

 committee, thus — 



[Hearing No. 9, p, 449, Apr. 13, 1912.] 



Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the Hitchcock rules were first published, I believe. 

 Have they been changed since then? 



Mr. Lembkey. Yes. they ha 



Mr. Elliott. As to killing any seal tinder 2 years of age? 



Mr. Lembkey. Not so far as to killing any seal under 2 years of age, but in 1906 they 

 were changed so as to mnk,: tht minimum weight 5 instead of oh pounds. 



Mr. Elliott. Why did the department fix 5J pounds in 1906? 



Mr. Lembkey. Now you are asking me something, Mr. Elliott, I do not believe I 

 am qualified to answer; just how the department arrived at an opinion of that kind 

 would hardly be a question for me to testify to. 



Mr. Elliott. You were not consulted? 



Mr. Lembkey. I was not consulted when the order was written. 



Mr. Elliott. That is all I wanted to get at. sir. In 1900 and 



Mr. Lembkey. I will state, however, that I made a recommendation to the effect that the 

 weight be decreased from 5h pounds to 5 pounds, if that is what you have reference to. 



Mr. Elliott. Oh, you did. Did you make that recommendation in 1904? 



Mr. Lembkey. If I remember correctly I recommended to Mr. Hitchcock that the mini- 

 mum weight in 1904 be fixed at 5 pounds. 



Mr. Elliott. Yes: and Mr. Hitchcock overruled you. 



Mr. Lembkey. I do not say that he overruled me. He fixed the weight, according 

 to his published statement, at 5\ pounds so that there would be absolutely no question as to 

 the fact thai th seals token were over 2 years of age. 



Mr. Elliott. Were ,; not under 2 years of age?" 



Mr. Lembkey. Over 2 years of age. 



Mr. Elliott. Does not this regulation say "under 2 years of age? " 



Mr. Lembkey. I guess we are talking about the same thing only we do not recognize 

 it. He said there should be no question of the fact that the skins taken were over 2 

 years of age. I presume that is what you mean. too. 



