INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 701 



Mr. Elliott. No; I think not; it must be Charles Foster, his 

 associate in the business, and who was Secretary of the Treasury at 

 that time. 



Mr. Watkins. I may be wrong about it, and it may be possible to 

 have him before the committee, if he is accessible. 



Mr. Elliott. Well, here is his official record, and I do not know 

 what else he could do before the committee. It is all a matter that is 

 certified to and closed. 



Mr. Watkins. So much hinges on that word "breeders." 



Mr. Elliott. Well, that is perfectly clear. "Breeders" is a false 

 interpretation of the Russian text. The word "breeders" gives a 

 false impression in this report, because "breeders" leads you to 

 understand the killing of males as well as females. 



Mr. Watkins. That is the very question, whether they intended 

 by that language to mean females and males, whether the word 

 "breeders" 



Mr. Elliott (interposing). Why use the word "breeders" when 

 it is not in the language of the Yanovsky letter ? His letter says 

 distinctly bachelors, "Hollusehickov" and "Holluschickovie." You 

 can not get away from the clean-cut translation of the Russian record 

 which stands now in the American case, since November 19, 1892. 

 Let me tell you something about Yanovsky. He was no common 

 man. This man was sent out from the board of Russian directors 

 in the summer of 1818 as one of their own set, interested in their 

 dividends, and sent to find out what the trouble was on the islands. 

 The catches of seal skins were getting smaller every year; he went 

 there, made that investigation, kept his mouth shut, and sent his 

 report back to them containing the facts that should govern them, 

 not for publication, but to let them know just what they had to do. 

 And he described, after spending four months on the islands, the exact 

 effect of this killing; reviewed it away back, and brought it down to 

 date of February 25, 1820. And it was due, entirely, as he says, to 

 the fact that if any "young bachelor got away from the clubbers in 

 the autumn, he was sure to be killed in the following spring." Not 

 "young breeders," but "young bachelors" — young males. They 

 were not killing the females; they were separating them. However, 

 I have never believed the Russians separated and saved those year- 

 lings any more than our people saved them in the last 20 years. Not 

 a bit. Let me show you what I say on page 58, hearing No. 1, Janu- 

 ary 17, 1914: 



It is a fact of indisputable record that the Russians never killed or disturbed the 

 female seals on the rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands from start to finish of 

 their possession of them. 



It is a fact of undisputable record that from 1786-87 up to 1800, the Russians annually 

 took from 120,000 to 60,000 young males, and yearling seals from these hauling grounds 

 and during all that time never took any seals at sea nor were these seals taken at sea 

 by any other people, save the few annually secured by the Northwest coast Indians. 



The took the yearlings just exactly as our people have been taking 

 them; but they had the right to do it. They were not violating any 

 law; but our people, own, ever since 1896, were deliberately violat- 

 ing the law and regulations to enrich a few very rich men at the public 

 cost, and credit, by killing these yearlings. 



Now, if there are any questions to ask on this branch I am ready to 

 answer them; but, if not, I will go on to the question of the skins. 



