738 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 



1874; the same "small seals" from 33 to 46 pounds in weight and 

 from 34 to 41 inches in length; the same yearlings of 1872 were under 

 his eyes in 1913, July 9 to 31, which Clark also saw at the same time, 

 last summer, with Elliott. 



Clark never disputed the appearance of yearlings to Mr. Elliott's 

 face on the islands, last summer; he did try to get Elliott to argue 

 over the relative number of yearlings that were hauled out as com- 

 pared with the 2, 3, and 4 year olds. Elliott declined to argue over 

 that question. 



I was not sent up to argue with anybody. I was sent up to get 

 these facts and bring them here, and if there is any argument with 

 Mr. Clark, this committee must argue with him; not I. 



Now, why did Clark fail to make a record of the sizes and weights 

 of these yearling seals for his own identification and as he was 

 "instructed" to do? 



He had abundant time; he had unlimited assistance, if he required 

 help; they why did he fail to make that record of those yearling seals 

 as he was instructed to do ? 



There is good reason; if he had done so, he would simply have con- 

 firmed the Elliott table of yearling weights and measurements made 

 in 1872-1874, and duly published ever since 1875. 



The truth in regard to Mr. Clark and his "expert" errands of 1912 

 and 1913 to the Seal Islands is simply this: He went up to the islands 

 with the plan of laying some foundation for the "discovery" of the 

 "fact" that the yearling seals do not haul out on the islands during 

 the months of June and July, and as the commercial (or lessees) killing 

 season has always ended annually bv July 31, yearling seals could 

 n >t have been killed and were not killed, as charged. 



Mr. Elliott's unexpected appearance last July on the islands put 

 a quietus to that trick of "scientific " denial of the hauling of yearlings 

 in June and July. The game could not be played with a lone hand, 

 as was planned in 1912. 



Now, gentlemen, we will come to the "count" of pups. That will 

 be very short; it will not take long to uncover the untruth of that. 

 I will do that right from his own records. 



Proof of the untruth of "accurate live pup counts," which Geo. A. 

 Clark claims to have made in 1912 and 1913. 



I do not think it necessary to dwell upon the untruth of Mr. Clark's 

 claim to have made an "accurate count of all the live pups" on the 

 Pribilof rookeries during the seasons of 1912 and 1913. 



If he did make an accurate count of all the live pups on St. George 

 Island in 1912 (where the counting has been easiest to attempt), 

 then he made an incorrect count of them in 1913, for his figures of 

 1912 showed 11,949 pups there, and in 1913 he again "counts" 

 them and there are onlv 12,811 — an increase which is microscopic; 

 in fact, no increase at all. (See p. 14, Clark's Rept., 19.13.) 



Those seals must have increased on those St. George rookeries 

 between August 1, 1912, when he counted 11,949 cows alive and busy, 

 up to that date, by at least 18 per cent in 1913; yet this "accurate 

 pup count" of Clark in 1913 denies any notable increase there at all. 



The whole business of "accurate live pup counting" is a fa^ce; 

 and, not only that, but it is a positive injury to the herd in its con- 



