INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 281 



The Alexander was owned by Isaac and Herman Liebes up to 

 December 21, 1893. In November, 1893, Liebes's attorneys, Jeffries 

 and Tingle, filed claims against Russia for damages in re seizure of the 

 James Hamilton Lewis; those claims were put up to the United 

 States State Department hi the name of a "dummy" owner ("Max 

 Waizman") and Alexander McLean, as an " American citizen law- 

 fully engaged," etc. McLean's record since 1893, follows. He was 

 during — 



1894 to 1902. In command of various pelagic vessels, but under restraint from the 

 lessees, since the claim of the /. Hamilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed, up to 

 its successful end November 29, 1902. at The Hague. 



1896. He appears as a "true American" before the claims award commission, which 

 sits at Victoria, in settlement of damage suits against the United States Government 

 for seized sealers and vessels in 1866-1889; he testifies, "at the peril of his life," for the 

 American commissioners as to the value of the British boats seized. (See Rept. 2128, 

 Senate bill 3410, 58th Cong,, 2d sess.) He is in truth working for the highest figures 

 obtainable from the United States Treasury, instead of the lowest. 



1903. He can not be placed with certainty this year. 



1904. He raids Copper Island August 2, in the "Mexican" schooner Cervencita; one 

 of his men seriously shot. 



1905. He attempts a raid on St. Paul Island, Northeast Point, but is driven off, he is 

 sailing in the Acapulco, and defies arrest by United States agents, for he is a British 

 subject: at Victoria British Columbia, in October, 1905. 



Why did McLean defy arrest? Why was he undisturbed at 

 Victoria? Why, when he had been indicted, August 19, 1905, in the 

 United States District Court of California, San Francisco, charged 

 with conspiracy to defraud the United States Government, under 

 section 5440, Revised Statutes ? 



It was because the United States State Department, when asked 

 (Sept. 16 and Oct. 16, 1905) by the United States consul at Victoria, 

 Abraham E. Smith, to authorize and instruct him (Smith) to demand 

 the arrest and extradition of Alexander McLean, agreeably to the 

 terms of that above-cited indictment of August 19, 1905, refused 

 to so "instruct" Consul Smith. The United States district attorney 

 (Devlin), of the California District Court, had also asked (Sept. 7, 1905) 

 Consul Smith to demand the arrest and extradition of McLean; but 

 Smith replied that unless the State Department ordered this action 

 on his part, he would not move in the matter — that he could not. 



But Smith, nevertheless, did address a request in September (16th) 

 to H. H. D. Peirce, (as Acting Secretary or) Assistant Secretary of 

 State, for authority to make this demand on the British authorities 

 at Victoria for McLean's arrest and extradition. Peirce made no 

 answer. On October 16, 1905, Smith again called Peirce's attention 

 to this fact, that McLean was still in Victoria, under indictment at 

 San Francisco, but "unless specially instructed by the department 

 to demand extradition," he, Smith, will not move in the premises 

 (despite the urgent request that he do so, as made by United States 

 District Attorney Devlin, of California), and that up to date (Oct. 

 16, 1905) "no such instruction has been received, and, therefore, the 

 whole affair appears to be closed." 



Now, why did Peirce, as Acting Secretary of State, when the 

 United States consul, Smith, first asked him to authorize this demand 

 for McLean's extradition (September, 1905), decline to do so and 

 then so influence the Attorney General's office in Washington as to 

 have the hint given Devlin in San Francisco that McLean could not 

 be extradited, "according to the State Department," for this offense, 



