INVESTIGATION OF THE FUK-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 709 



Mr. Madden. As a matter of fact, you might possibly find a seal that was returned 

 a year old, and after it had come back from its trip to the ocean on the 25th of July 

 it would be a year or a few days over, and it might not be over 30 inches in length. 



Air. Elliott. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Madden. And it might be 39^ inches? 



Mr. Elliott. Thirty-six inches. Mr. Lembkey, when he measured what he called 

 a "yearling," selected a remarkably well-grown one. I allowed him to take those as 

 ' ' middling pups, ' ' and I have not charged any malfeasance in having those so taken 

 by him. Those "long" yearlings are invariably males, and no real tisk of killing 

 females, when he does, is incurred by him. 



Mr. Madden. I would like to inquire whether the fact that seals were killed that 

 measured not over 30 inches is prima facie evidence of the fact that they are lesa 

 than a year old? 



Mr. Elliott. I could hardly say, positively, that they were all less than a year old, 

 but can say positively that they were all under 2 years of age. That is the point I 

 am making. 



Mr. Watkins. That denominates a yearling technically? 

 Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; that is the term. 



Mr. Madden. I rather got the impression from what you said that you wanted to 

 impress the committee — I do not want to be understood as indicating that you did — 

 that the fact that a number of seals killed in the year indicated were less than 39£ 

 inches, 36£ inches and down to 30 inches, made it certain that they were less than a 

 year old. 



Mr. Elliott. Less than "2 years old"; because it is impossible for any man to 

 draw that line, but it is possible to draw the line "under 2 years old." That is the 

 point. 



That fact determines them, all of them, to have been the skins taken from yearling 

 seals, since Mr. Lembkey testifies that the length of a "yearling" sealskin is 36^ 

 inches. (See testimony, pp. 442, 443, hearing No. 9, Apr. 13, 1912.) 



Mr. Watkins. Why do you continue to refer to a year-old seal 

 when the law is that they must not kill yearlings and when year- 

 lings may be 2 years old. 



Mr. Elliott. May be "under 2 years old." A "yearling" must 

 be "under 2 years old." 



Mr. Watkins. But I now understand you to refer to 2-year olds 

 as not yearlings ? 



Mr. Elliott. A "year-old seal." You can not swear to it. You 

 can swear to it as a "yearling," as a pup born last year, and that has 

 returned the next year after its first migration. 



Mr. Watkins. I do not think you quite get my question. I 

 understood you to say that the technical definition of a yearling is a 

 seal which is anything under 2 years old. 



Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Watkins. But you have several times repeated the statement 

 that these seals are a year old 



Mr. Elliott (interposing). They must be a year old or they 

 would not be back there. They have got to get back, and if they get 

 back at all they are a year old. They leave when they are five 

 months old, and if they appear next summer they are a year old. 



Mr. Watkins. You seem to lay some stress on the fact that there 

 have been year-old seals killed. Is there any legal regulation in 

 regard to that? 



Mr. Elliott. There was in the act of July 1, 1870, without the 

 regulations. The regulations of Secretary Carlisle, first made in 

 1896, made it improper to kill anything under 2 years, while the law 

 until then allowed them to kill anything over a year old. 



Mr. Watkins. That explains your reference in some instances to 

 seals a year old and in other instances to seals under 2 years old. 



