736 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 



[Page 259.] 



July 16. 



Reef. — A third drive for branding is made from the reef and Gorbatch. For the 

 first time this season bachelors have been found on the cinder slope of the latter 

 rookery. It aggregated about 2,200 animals and was by far the largest drive of the 

 season. The quota for the breeding reserve in St. Paul is 1,600, and 300 remain 

 to be marked. These were obtained through the handling of 919 animals, the results 

 being as follows: 



Old brands 54 



New brands 301 



Rejections: 



1 's and 2 's 550 



4's 7 



5's 5 



7's 2 



Total 919 



Here is the exhibition of the separation of 3-year-olds from " 1 and 

 2 year olds" carried out all the way through these records as above. 

 Why have the " 1-year-olds" not been separated in the count? 



Why has the separation of the 2-year-olds been clearly made from 

 the 3-year-olds when those classes are the most difficult of all to 

 separate ? 



Mr. Patton. Who is that from? 



Mr. Elliott. This is mine. I have got it all properly quoted. 



Mr. Stephens. What do you mean by rejections? 



Mr. Elliott. Those turned away, you know; they were too small. 

 He was "shearing" 3-year-olds on the tops of their heads. 



Think a moment of this shallow trick thus employed by a "scien- 

 tist" to attempt to conceal the fact that a majority of the seals 

 driven up in 1912 from the hauling grounds between July 3 and July 

 16 were yearlings! 



Mr. Patton. Does he say that? 



Mr. Elliott. I say that. 



The)' were yearlings because they could not by any sophism be 

 called 2-year-olds, since the natives had made the selection surely 

 and well; but Clark kept the records, and has jumbled the numbers of 

 the 1-year-olds with the 2-year-olds, so as to deceive and confuse the 

 reader. 



Mr. Patton. Why did he not separate the 1-year-olds? 



Mr. Elliott. The natives did it from the 2-year-olds and 3-year- 

 olds. 



Mr. Patton. Was he not only after the 3-year-olds ? 



Mr. Elliott. Then why itemize these other classes and con- 

 stantly jumble together the 1-year-olds and the 2-year-olds? 



Mr. Patton. I do not think it was necessary to separate them 

 when he only wanted the others. 



Mr. Elliott. Then why does he separate them and speak of all the 

 others except the yearlings ? 



The Chairman*. Just answer the question of the Congressman. 



Mr. Elliott. I did; I answered him. If I am itemizing the 

 rejections as he did. why jumble together the 1 and 2 year olds? 



The Chairman. Just answer his question. It seems to me you 

 were talking at the same time he was asking his question. 



Mr. Elliott. Well, I have answered it. 



