806 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 



No. Why? Because the truth hurt certain parties with whom 

 Funs ten Bros. & Co. had very close relations — the truth hurt cer- 

 tain Government officials who had been busy with them as early as 

 1910 in getting this sale of Alaska fur-seal skins made by them in 

 St. Louis. That this telegram was deliberately prepared and sent to 

 Mr. McGuire by Funsten Bros. & Co. March 13, 1914, to deceive 

 him, or deceive this committee, the following proof of its being a false 

 statement is submitted. 



When Funsten Bros. & Co. sold these skins as cited to Mr. 

 McGuire, in that telegram above quoted, December 16, 1913, the sale 

 was attended by representatives of the leading authoritative fur- 

 trade journals; these have all duly published their record of its prog- 

 ress and result. That Funsten Bros. & Co. have falsified that 

 record of this sale to Mr. McGuire, the following evidence of the fact 

 is found authoritatively published February 1, 1914, and never dis- 

 puted by anyone up to date, to wit: On page 182, Fur News Maga- 

 zine, New York, February, 1914, is the following, to wit: 



The kill (not catch) of fur seals in 1913, as evidenced by the catalogue at St. Louis 

 sale, shows an extreme number of "low" and "cut" skins. This condition we con- 

 sider wholly unnecessary, as the seals were killed primarily for food and there was 

 no pressing need of hurry or lack of time to make proper selection with reference to 

 the fur, which was of more value and importance than the meat. 



At the sale of fur-seal skins in St. Louis, December 16, 1913, the skins taken by the 

 Government, the offering comprised 1,898 skins, of which 680 graded as "low" and 

 "cut," or within a fraction of 36 per cent. 



At the sale of fur-seal skins in December, 1908, when the skins were taken by the 

 North American Commercial Co., the catch comprised 14,965 skins, of which 2,456 

 graded as "low" and "cut," or a little less than 16 J per cent. 



Mr. Stephens. On that point, what do you mean by "low" and 

 "cut"? 



Mr. Elliott. I am coming to that. I am going to explain that. 

 I will bring that all out in this statement. I anticipated your 

 question. 



Mr. Stephens. All right. 



Mr. Elliott. Here is the complete, authentic record of that 

 "criticism" —all the "criticism" which the buyers made at that sale. 



Is there a hint here in its text, so authoritatively published Febru- 

 ary 1, last, or a word that complains of those skins as not having 

 "enough blubber left" on them? 



No; not a word. But they are criticized by the buyers for the 

 trade, because they were "cut," "low," and so faulty. 



Why were they 'cut" ? Because all of the larger sized skins were 

 so "clean skinned" of blubber that in that close cutting off of this 

 blubber, the knives of the natives slip now and then, and "cut" into 

 the skin, the true skin, the cutis vera. 



Why were they also rated "low" ? Because of the larger number 

 of small sized skins than the average of such a catch of 1,898 pelts 

 should have: that is, the proportion of yearling skins was too large 

 for the right average of such a small catch of 1,898 skins as compared 

 with that average in the last 20 years. 



Therefore, Funsten Bros. & Co.'s telegram, in which they declare 

 that the "only criticism" found with the 1912 catch of 1,989 skins 

 sold by them, was that "not enough blubber" was "left on those 

 skins," is a deliberate falsification of the published record of fact 

 in the premises and as I have quoted that publication to this com- 

 mittee. 



