838 INVESTIGATION OF THE FUB-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 



SOME OF THE CHARACTERISTIC CHARGES. 



(a) It is asserted, for illustration, that a report made by George A. Clark in 1909 was 

 suppressed. It was transmitted to your committee in 1911, in compliance with a gen- 

 eral demand for all documents. You had it before you when you signed your com- 

 mittee's report in 1913. I doubt whether I personally ever read this report. The read- 

 ing of all similar documents in all the bureaus is out of question. I do know, however, 

 that George A. Clark was one of the men upon whose active advice I depended in 

 approving rules and conduct. Indeed, the department had the benefit of his exper- 

 ience and observations, and he comes in for particular criticism for having advised me 

 to do what was done. Even this report did not, in Mr. Clark's mind, bear the inter- 

 pretation which is now placed upon it; nor is it rationally capable of such interpreta- 

 tion. Furthermore, Dr. H. M. Smith, of the Bureau of Fisheries (now its chief) did 

 bring this report to my attention on August 31, 1909; and that report was soon after 

 transmitted to the State Department for its use in connection with the negotiations 

 for a treaty. If, on the other hand, it is meant that the Clark report was suppressed 

 because it was not printed, I must call attention to the fact that any attempt by the 

 department to print all similar reports would have resulted in an early exhaustion 

 of its annual appropriation; and in that event a committee on expenditures in the 

 Department of Commerce and Labor might have been given very legitimate occupa- 

 tion. For illustration, it has not been charged that this same Mr. Clark's report for 

 1913 was suppressed because Secretary Redfield did not order it printed. 



(6) Reference has also been made to a Treasury rule of 1896, restricting the taking 

 of sealskins to 6 pounds, which rule your special agent claims to have discovered in 

 the agent's books on the seal islands. This is also claimed to have been suppressed by 

 the Bureau of Fisheries. I confess I do not recall it — probably never heard of it 

 before. It is admitted that in 1904 an official in the department, whose integrity has 

 not yet been assailed, prepared new rules in ignorance of the one-time existence of 

 this same newly discovered one. Obviously, if made at all, this rule was made long 

 before the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor. In the year 1909, 

 when I came into office, this rule had been superseded several times, and probably 

 had never been transmitted to my department. It now constitutes one of those 

 historic details for the publication of which time and money may be expended, but 

 which otherwise has neither value nor interest. 



The effort to first charge the lessees with misconduct during a period of 20 years, 

 and then to saddle my administration with the responsibility, because the last year of 

 the lease covered the first year of my administration, is hardly deserving of attention. 

 The last killing under the lease was had within a few months after I took control. It 

 was the end of a system with the practical administration of which I barely had time 

 to come in touch, and which I earnestly helped to abolish. If it could now be shown 

 (which there is no reason to believe, and which the returns of sales refute) that the 

 rules of the department were, during that one season, disregarded; if, in other words, 

 your recommendations upon this subject to the Department of Justice in January, 1913, 

 should be accepted, I know of no circumstance to explain the delay or to obstruct the 

 doing of exact justice now. 



THE CONTENTION THAT NO MALE SEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED. 



But the real burden of the complaint is that the rule which allowed the killing of 

 any seals was unwise, and that even the rules as made were wilfully disregarded. As 

 I stated above, the first question presented a difference of opinion. To admit that 

 there was an honest difference is to dignify the personal squabble that has beset every 

 official who had the responsibility of making a derision. I have named the men of 

 authority and experience who counseled me, a disregard of whose advice by me 

 might well have given ground for complaint. They were supported by Mr. Henry F. 

 Osborn, president • f the New York Zoological Society, and by every scientific pub- 

 lication of consequence that has come to my at i cut ion. Even Dr. W. T. Hornday 

 wrote Commissioner Bowers as late as March 3, 1910: 



''Part of my object in writing is to once more beg of you to use your influence 

 against tin:- making of a new lease, either this year or next. While 1 am a sincere 

 believer in tin- advisability, from a business point of view, of following the Russian 

 example and making a 10-year cl< se season, I will add that after we have made satis- 

 factory treaties with England and Canada, Russia, Japan, and Mexico for the sup- 

 pression of pelagic sealing, I would see no insuperable objection to the making of a 

 killing lease, under suitable restrictions. I am quite sure, however, that the making 

 of such a lease now would be very detrimental to the interests of our Government 

 and to the work of the State Department." 



