INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 837 



The chief of the Bureau of Fisheries was himself an administrator rather than a 

 trained expert. But his assistant and other members of his staff were qualified ex- 

 perts. I looked to such men as Drs. Smith and Everman of the bureau, both of whom 

 were in the service when I left the department. Dr. Smith has since then been 

 promoted to the position of chief of Bureau of Fisheries, by President Wilson, and is, 

 in view of his past advice to me, to be congratulated upon having escaped the bane- 

 ful consequences of this investigation, and upon having been confirmed by the Senate. 



In addition, there were upon the seal board such other experienced men as M. C. 

 Marsh, A. B. Alexander, Walter L. Lembkey, and James Judge, who were consulted. 

 There were still other advisers to whom I was bound to defer. During the Adminis- 

 tration of President Roosevelt, my predecessor, Secretary Strauss, had appointed an 

 advisory board of the following: Dr. David Starr Jordan, Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, 

 Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Dr. Charles H. Townsend, Hon. Edward 

 W. Sims, and Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock. They were selected to pass upon the ques- 

 tion, among others, whether we should continue to kill a certain percentage of male 

 seals. I had their report before me, recommending precisely what was afterwards 

 done. From time to time members of these boards were further consulted, so that I 

 had the right to feel that I was acting upon the advice of the most experienced men in 

 our country. It has been insinuated that the department failed to consult two men — 

 Dr. Merriam and Postmaster General Hitchcock. I do not recall about the first, 

 although his testimony at the hearing disposes of all doubt about his position. The 

 second was present at Cabinet meetings and was advised of the course that was adopted 

 by the department. 



It is asserted that the department did not heed the warnings of Henry Elliott and 

 Dr. Hornaday. That is true. .Both started with instructions as to what the depart- 

 ment must do, and coupled them with accusations against reputable men, which 

 could not be entertained without proof, and which I do not now entertain in the 

 face of your committee's investigation. I concluded early, and I now think wisely, 

 that to satisfy the opposition I would have to surrender the control of my office. 

 This I refused; and I do not now regret to share the consequences with the men 

 who have been inadvisedly attacked. If one man, however innocent, had been 

 singled out in the hope that the truth would never overtake a lie well started, he 

 might have been humiliated. But conditions are not yet ripe to have the reputa- 

 tions of such men as compose the boards above referred to all destroyed at one blow. 

 Practicallv all these men to-day occupy positions of public responsibility in spheres 

 closely related to the question then under consideration. Their work is under con- 

 stant observation. They continue to command the respect of their superiors in 

 office and their scientific colleagues out of office, as resolutions of associations and 

 editorial comment in publications and correspondence will abundantly testify. 



EFFORT IN THE PAST TO AVOID PERSONAL CONTROVERSY. 



I regret to have even referred to the personal phases of your investigation. You 

 will have to admit that I have done so only in so far as the course of the inquiry 

 makes this necessary. When during the regular hearing between the 31st day of 

 May, 1911, and the 31st day of July, 1912, you left it optional with me to appear, you 

 will remember that I deemed this unnecessary, because I could not contribute any- 

 thing to the merits of your inquiry, and most of those who could make such contri- 

 butions and upon whose judgment I would in any event have to rely had appeared 

 and testified. 



Your own report made January 31, 1913, confirmed me in the correctness of my 

 position. The slight criticism which the majority of your committee made, was in 

 the main directed at details of management with respect to which I depended neces- 

 sarily upon subordinates, who had testified from their personal knowledge, and who, 

 in my opinion and that of the minority of the committee, were fully sustained by the 

 records and the undoubted facts. 



The hearing has now been reopened. Little or nothing new has been presented, 

 although unusual publicity has attended your special agent's last report. For thi8 

 reason I have referred to some of the personal phases contained in it. For the same 

 reason I shall now take the time to comment upon a few of the more flagrant misrepre- 

 sentations which followed the giving out of this report. 



The lack of order or discernible purpose in your inquiries is such that I may not have 

 caught all the accusations that are intended for my attention. As they come to me I 

 shall be prepared to take them up; but shall now content myself with the mention of 

 a few that have enjoyed peculiar distinction. 



