728 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OP ALASKA. 



as yearlings, and they reported it. They "assumed" nothing, as Mr. 

 Clark says here under oath; they knew it, just as I knew it 30 years 

 before them! 



Clark swears that he branded pup seals, less than 2 months old, with 

 a red-hot iron on the top of their heads, 3d-6th September, 1912, and 

 then adds: 



Mr. McGuire. Now, what time in 1912 did you do this branding — what dates? 



Mr. Clark. It was the first week in September * * * on the 3d of September. 



Mr. McGuire . And you branded them practically from the 5th to 10th of September? 



Mr. Clark. That was really too early, and it was done then because I had to get 

 away. 



Mr. McGuire. Then in 1913, you say you made a search for the branded animals 

 and they were not there? 



Mr. Clark. Except as to this one animal, which I found in this bunch on the Reef; 

 but I saw in addition to that one, three other animals, two of them on St. George Island. 



Sworn statement, February 21, 1914. House Committee on Ex- 

 penditures in the Department of Commerce. 



Mr. Stephens. Where will we find that statement ? 



Mr. Elliott. I am coming to it. 1 am going to bring it all in. 

 W. I. Lembkey, before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 

 January 25, 1907, pleading the excuse that he "shaved" or "sheared" 

 the heads of "reserved" 3-year-old seals instead of branding them on 

 *the napes and backs, as I had demanded he should do, pleading as his 

 excuse for "shaving" that he "could not put red-hot irons on the tops 

 of the heads of 3-year-old seals without injuring their brains." Now, 



1 wjll read his testimony. 



The Chairman. Lembkey assisted in branding, according to Mr. 

 Clark's statement? 



Mr. Elliott. Yes. But I am going back to the time when he 

 appeared before the Committee on Ways and Means, January 25, 1907, 

 and when I had made my charge then, that he had failed to obey the 

 Hitchcock rules, and had put a vanishing mark on the "reserved" 

 seals instead of a permanent one. Then he made the excuse that he 

 would not dare do it on the tops of their heads because it would injure 

 their brains. He was right; but I told him to put the marks on the 

 napes of the seals where it would not injure their brains, and where 

 they would not sensibly feel it. 



Please observe how Lembkey swears that he can not brand 3-year- 

 old seals on the top of their heads without injury to their brains — so 

 he "shears" them. (Row did the transparent skulls of pups less than 



2 months old, shield their brains from injury at the hands of Clark and 

 his red-hot irons?) 



Mr. Champ Clark. "What is the reason you can not brand a seal so that the brand 

 does not come off? 



Mr. Lembkey. That was discussed in full in 1904, at the time this action was put 

 in force. * * * The skull of the seal is very thin, and the question was seriously 

 discussed then whether a severe brand placed on top of the head of this animal would 

 not have a tendency to injure its brain, and also subject the Government to the 

 criticism of insisting on a practice which might readily be considered inhuman and 

 barbarous. 



Mr. Elliott. On that Mr. Hitchcock and I agreed in the main. You do not need to 

 brand the skull top — put it on the nape of the seal and it is perfectly harmless 



Mr. Lembkey. For that reason the department decided that, while they would 

 mark these seals with a hot iron yet the mark was to be made of such a character that 

 under no circumstances should it burn into the skin of the animal. 



{Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and Means Committee, Jan. 25, 1907; pp. 58, 59 M. S. 

 typed notes.) 



