INVESTIGATION OP THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OP ALASKA.. 355 



E verm aim, Bovvers, and Smith 

 put out this story showing their 

 opposition to the Hay-Elliott 

 treaty : 



[Boston Transcript, Oct. 30, 1909.] 



The "Seal Monopoly" — A Complete 

 Explanation of the Arrangement. 



Exclusive rights on the Pribilof Islands 

 again to be granted to the North Ameri- 

 can Commercial Co. — The monopoly is 

 only American; it does not cover the 

 entire business — There is, however, 

 much criticism, and many charges of 

 abuses are made; but the Government 

 is satisfied with the system — Some pro- 

 visions of the contract — The Hay- 

 Elliott plan for a remedy of conditions. 



prof. Elliott's remedy. 



Washington, October 28. 



Newspaper offices have been invaded 

 more or less of late by communications 

 from Prof. Henry W. Elliott, of Ohio, for- 

 merly a well-known figure in Washington, 

 sharply criticizing the apparent inaction 

 of the United States Government in reach- 

 ing an international agreement for the pro- 

 tection of the seal industry. Prof. Elliott 

 is fond of harking back to an agreement 

 which he, in cooperation with Secretary 

 of State John Hay, was about to conclude 

 with Sir Mortimer Durand, the British 

 ambassador, when the negotiations were 

 terminated by the retirement of Mr. Hay, 

 whose death followed soon after. The 

 Hay-Elliott agreement, as it has been 

 styled, would have settled the whole fur- 

 seal question, in the opinion of Prof. El- 

 liott; but according to the view of Gov- 

 ernment officials who are supposed to 

 know most about the sealing question, it 

 would still have left the main question 

 not only unsettled, but in a worse situa- 

 tion than before. This agreement, which 

 bears date of March 7, 1905, provided: 



(1) That all killing of fur seals on the 

 Pribilof Islands and in the waters of Be- 

 ring Sea and the North Pacific should be 

 entirely suspended and prohibited to 

 American citizens and British subjects 

 for a period of 12 or more years from its 

 date. 



(2) That when, after this period of rest 

 has lapsed, killing may be resumed on 

 these islands only, and only of a safe num- 

 ber of surplus male seals annually found 

 there, no killing at sea of any kind what- 

 ever to be resumed ; this killing to be done 

 by the American resident agents on the 

 islands, jointly under the supervision of 

 Canadian resident agents. 



(3) That for this complete suspension 

 of the rights of British subjects to kill 



Evermann then attempts to 

 deny this record as published by 

 him in the Boston Transcript, 

 October 30, 1909: 



The Chairman. You thought it was a 

 good thing to bring about this treaty, did 

 you not? 



Dr. Evermann. Undoubtedly, Mr. 

 Chairman. And I may say that the other 

 members of the Bureau of Fisheries and 

 myself contributed everything within 

 our power to bring about the signing of the 

 treaty. 



The Chairman. Do you not think it 

 would have been a good thing if this treaty 

 had been entered into when Hay was Sec- 

 retary of State? 



Dr. Evermann. A treaty of this kind 

 ought to have been negotiated in the 

 eighties, undoubtedly; the earlier the 

 better; but even late is better than never 

 at all. But it seemed to have never been 

 handled effectively until last year. 

 (Hearing No. 14, pp. 991, 992, July 29, 

 1912.) 



A CURIOUS "EXPLANATION " 



Stung into some semblance of activity 

 by recent exposures of lamentable condi- 

 tions in the seal fisheries of the Bering 

 Sea, the Department of Commerce and 

 Labor at Washington has at last been 

 moved to offer a detailed defense of its 

 attitude of neglect. The Washington cor- 

 respondent of the Boston Transcript, in a 

 two-column review of sealing conditions 

 as they appear to Secretary Nagel's de- 

 partment, performs a public service by 

 uncovering the official mind upon this im- 

 portant question. 



The Transcript man, claiming to ad- 

 vance no opinions of his own, gives a fairly 

 complete picture of the governmental atti- 

 tude upon the seal-fisheries question. He 

 reflects the department's "reasons" for 

 opposing a settlement of the long contro- 

 versy in accordance with the Hay-Elliott 

 plan, which was in favor both at Washing- 

 ton and Ottawa when Mr. Hay was Secre- 

 tary of State, and is still favored at the 

 Canadian capital. This plan of agree- 

 ment contemplated a treaty between the 

 United States and Great Britain (Canada) 

 first and then a similarly binding agree- 

 ment with Russia and Japan, the nations 

 next in interest. The Government's ex- 

 cuse for not pressing a settlement upon 

 this plan, as it could have been done at 

 any time since the death of John Hay, is 

 thus told through the Transcript corre- 

 spondent: 



' ' Even though Japan and willing Russia 

 join with Great Britain and the United 

 States in an international agreement, 

 nothing would exist to hinder France or 



