296 INVESTIGATION OP THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OE ALASKA. 



Now, what were those influences which caused this sworn official, 

 Dr. Townsend, to present and urge upon the Court of Arbitration at 

 The Hague this claim as a just and valid one, which he knew at 

 at heart and in truth was a fraudulent one ? 



H. H. D. Peirce, Townsend's associate, as Third Assistant Secre- 

 tary of State, says that he. Pence, was hi the game for the fees; for 

 all the money he could get out of the award as such — he makes no 

 bones about it; and so he sued Liebes and Tingle,. April 7, 1903, for 

 $11,333.33 fees in re, this award for the owners and the master of the 

 James Hamilton Lewis, viz, $47,684.78. (See equity suit No. 23886; 

 filed Apr. 7, 1903; United States Supreme Court, D. C; H. H. D. 

 Peirce v. Liebes and Tingle.) 



But Townsend denies receiving any compensation, or having any 

 personal interest hi the matter, except to represent to the court that 

 this James Hamilton Lewis was a vessel "lawfully cleared" and "law- 

 fully engaged" in pelagic sealing. He describes his activities to the 

 committee (p. 758, Hearing No. 12), to wit: 



The Chairman. I do not want him to make a statement that he can not substan- 

 tiate, but I would like to know now. Dr. Townsend, in what capacity you were at 

 The Hague Tribunal in this matter? 



Dr. Townsend. In the progress of the work before The Hague Tribunal it became 

 necessary for the Secretary to produce information on various sealing matters, such 

 as the movements of sealing vessels. I carried along with me a trunk full of log 

 books of sealing vessels. We would have before us the charges made by the Russian 

 representative during the day. and we would work all night preparing something to 

 refute the charges. I carried ihe log books that had been taken from the vessels. 



So when the Russians charge this vessel, the James Hamilton 

 Lewis, and her owners and master, with being illegally owned by the 

 lessees, and as such, unlawfully engaged, together with the record 

 of piracy. Townsend says that he "would work all night preparing 

 something to refute the charges"! 



Did Charles H. Townsend properly and truthfully refute the 

 charges? Did he not deceive the court '. Did any other "expert" 

 at that time appear, who carried the indorsement of 10 years' experi- 

 ence as a "sealing expert " by his Government , before the court ? No. 



So, on the strength of Townsend's sworn statements made to the 

 arbitrator, Dr. Asser, he awarded November 29, 1902, $28,588 with 

 interest at 6 per cent to the Lewis claimants (pp. 457-458, H. Doc. 

 No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.). 



Indeed, the arbitrator had no other course; there was no one pres- 

 ent to appear against Townsend who could show any "scientific" 

 knowledge, or acquaintance whatever, with the business of pelagic 

 sealing: and. that no doubt should remain in the minds of the in- 

 terested parties as to whom he was indebted for that information 

 which lea him to make this award, Dr. Asser, (we are informed on 

 p. 440, H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.), states as follows, to wit: 



SESSION OF FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 4, 1902. 



The session opened at 10 a. m. 



The arbitrator, Mr. Asser, expressed his thanks to the two powers who have been 

 pleased to have done him the honor to confer upon him the office of arbitrator. He 

 complimented the two delegates upon the preparation of the memorandum and the 

 rejoinders, and assured them of his appreciation of the supplementary information. 

 He thanked the experts also. The task of the Russian experts, who were obliged to 

 express themselves in another language, was particularly difhcult. They, nevertheless, 



