INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 589 



duced in the House proposing to suspend land sealing for 15 years and 

 that such a provision was attached to this bill, putting the treaty into 

 effect, he realized that if it were allowed to become a law, and we cut 

 off our land catch for 10 years, 15 years, or 5 years, Japan and Great 

 Britain would become dissatisfied and abrogate their treaty. With 

 the abrogation of the treaty, pelagic sealing would be resumed, and 

 the herd would go on its way to destruction. 



Mr. Stephexs. If land sealing had been stopped at that time, as 

 was suggested and which he opposed, would it not have been greatly 

 to the benefit of the persons who had the right to kill the seals until 

 the expiration of the lease ? 



Mr. Clark. The lease had then expired. 



Mr. Stephens. But they were seeking to reinstate it, were they 

 not? 



Mr. Clark. No; that had all been passed, you know. The Dixon 

 law, in 1910, had ended the leasing system. This was in 1912, as we 

 were approaching the passage of the law which put into effect the 

 treaty of 1911. 



Mr. Stephens. That was the treaty that was objected to ? 



Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. You say he was objecting to the treaty ? He 

 was objecting not to the treaty, but to the provision in law of 1912 sus* 

 pending land sealing, which was, m effect, a repudiation of our con* 

 tract under the treaty. In the treaty we agreed to give 15 per cent of 

 our land catch to Great Britain for Canada and 15 per cent of our land 

 catch to Japan to satisfy her pelagic sealers. The amendment carry- 

 ing the suspension was troubling Mr. Sulzer. 



Mr. McGuire. And would have abrogated the treaty? 



The Chairman. The treaty provides, though, that if the United 

 States Government stops all killing for a period that it shall pay so 

 much money to these different countries. 



Mr. Clark. The treaty reserved, very properly, to the United States 

 the right to control its sealing and to stop it at any time. It also 

 stated that that right was dependent upon a necessity to preserve and 

 increase the herd. If it became necessary in order to preserve and 

 increase the herd for the United States to stop the killing on land, the 

 treaty permitted it at any time. In order to stop the land sealing 

 however, the United States must demonstrate its necessity for the 

 preservation and increase of the herd. 



Mr. McGuire. Is that the present treaty? 



Mr. Clark. That is in the treaty. The present treaty reads that 

 way. 



Mr. McGuire. If the United States can show that it is necessary 

 to stop land killing in order to increase the herd, we do not have to 

 pay any money ? 



Mr. Clark. We do have to pay. 



Mr. McGuire. We have to pay anyway? 



Mr. Clark. Yes; if we take advantage of our right — that reserved 

 right — we have to pay in lieu of a share in the land catch $10,000 a 

 year to these parties. When we did stop land killing, however, it was 

 up to us to demonstrate that it was necessary for the preservation and 

 increase of the herd. I have shown you gentlemen that land killing 

 has had no effect as yet and that the herd has, notwithstanding 

 increased 12§ per cent. Therefore the suspension of land killing is 

 not necessary and is a violation of the treaty. 



