836 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 



before the Senate and the House committees to explain the importance of the measure 

 and to urge its passage. It passed both Houses and was signed by the President. 

 In the meantime, in order that we might be prepared whatever the event (no one 

 being in a position to say that a new law would be enacted), we had, of course, made 

 every preparation under the mandatory terms of the old statute and kept all persons 

 who inquired advised of the situation from time to time. 



In the face of these uncontroverted facts which may be gathered from the official 

 correspondence of the department with the President, Senator Dixon, and others, it 

 is hardly necessary to characterize any statement to the effect that the Bureau of 

 Fisheries or I resisted this change or sought to continue the leasing system. 



THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS FOR A TREATY TO SUPPRESS PELAGIC SEALING. 



The second and perhaps more important subject to which I devoted myself was 

 the suppression of pelagic sealing by treaty. With respect to this question I heard 

 only one opinion. In fact, at that time many differences upon minor matters turned 

 upon the probable effect which this or that decision might have upon this controlling 

 issue. For illustration, the contention which now monopolizes attention, that it 

 would be wiser to discontinue the killing of even a certain percentage of male seals, 

 was at that time made, chiefly because of the supposed beneficial effect of such an 

 announcement upon the prospects for a treaty. Repeatedly during the year 1909 

 Mr. Bowers, of the Bureau of Fisheries, discussed with me the urgent need for such a 

 treaty. The slaughter of female seals by pelagic sealers had become so ruinous that 

 high authority had suggested the annihilation of the entire herd as the only consistent 

 termination to so destructive a practice. In the fall of 1909 I addressed the State 

 Department, making an earnest appeal to renew the effort. The story is an old one. 

 The State Department advised me that negotiations for a convention were underway; 

 and they were finally successful. The four countries interested — Great Britain, 

 Russia, japan, and the United States — appointed delegates to the convention held in 

 Washington in 1911, I being one of the delegates for this country. After a session of 

 many weeks, which at times threatened to adjourn without agreement, the treaty was 

 adopted, and it is now in force. 



It serves no purpose now to dispute over the questions how and by whom this or 

 that provision of the treaty was prepared. Indeed, it would not be proper to state 

 more than the official protocol contains. Such discussion may be safely left to those 

 whose personal rancor has blinded them to the cause to be served. Those who have 

 kept that cause in mind are glad to forget past differences of opinion, to rejoice in 

 present success. 



To repeat, in 1911 the leasing system and pelagic sealing had been abolished, both 

 with the earnest and constant cooperation of the department and the representatives 

 of the Fisheries Bureau. There then remained only one question to decide: Should 

 all killing be suspended, or should a given percentage of male seals be taken during 

 the season of 1912? 



PELAGIC SEALING HAVING BEEN ABOLISHED, WHICH POLICY WOULD BEST CONSERVE 



THE SEAL HERDS? 



This presented a subordinate question about which my opinion would be of little 

 or no value, and which therefore had to be determined by those who were by law 

 charged with the consideration of such problems. The system of distinct bureaus in 

 one and the same department contemplates that particular work shall be intrusted 

 to men who are particularly qualified for that work. The Bureau of Fisheries would, 

 for illustration, not be consulted about a machine to test the strength of steel, or about 

 a census of the manufactures of this country, or about an immigration case at Ellis 

 Island. But it would be required to decide whether or not it is safe and wise to kill a 

 certain percentage of male seals, and if so, in what season, in what proportion, and 

 at what ages? And inasmuch as it is impracticable to classify seals according to age 

 by grouping or segregation from one season to another, it would be for the bureau to 

 decide how the question of age can be determined with practical security. I make 

 this detailed explanation because I wish to save a somewhat obvious rule of adminis- 

 tration from the confusion which disproportionate attention to past controversies and 

 revamped historical data has cast upon it. I knew little more about the propriety 

 or time of killing seal than did the Chiefs of the Bureaus of Navigation or Corporations. 

 If my past experience had qualified me to understand the detail work of any bureau, 

 the Bureau of Fisheries certainly was not the one. In other words, I relied upon that 

 advice and assistance which the law contemplates when it gives a Secretary super- 

 visory control of his department. 



