INVESTIGATION OF THE FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 839 



It is perfectly clear that in the early stages of this controversy Dr. Hornaday under- 

 took to tell the departments what course must be adopted to procure a treaty. His 

 advice was not taken, but the treaty is in force. He was at that time willing even, 

 after we had obtained a treaty, to make a "killing lease." This was not done, and 

 the Government took over the seal herds with the authority to regulate or to abate 

 the killing from year to year, in the light of its own experience. 



Briefly stated, the considerations upon which the decision to continue the killing 

 of male seals was reached were these: The law left the decision absolutely with the 

 Secretary. There is no doubt about its terms, and Senator Dixon, in reporting the 

 bill, so explained to the Senate. It is doubtful whether the bill could have been 

 passed, if it had contained a provision for a closed season. We had contended for 

 ye.Lrs that pelagic sealing was the sole cause for the depletion of the herds, and that the 

 killing of a percentage of males was proper. A closed season would have constituted 

 an abandonment of our contention, and might have weakened our position. This is 

 made perfectly clear by the discussion on the floor of the Senate when the bill was 

 under consideration. Several Senators insisted that the bill really presented an 

 international question and should be referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

 and not to the Committee on Conservation. The opposition was removed by the 

 assurance that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor had the discretionary power, and 

 eould adjust the policy of his department to the needs of the State Department. This 

 was afterwards done. "When it had been decided, upon the advice of the experts, that 

 in so far as the conservation of the herds was concerned, the killing of a certain percent- 

 age of males on land was wise, the further question as to the probable effect of such 

 action upon the chances for a treaty to suppress pelagic sealing was referred to the 

 State Department. This department answered that it had no objection to offer, and 

 added that the understanding that provisions of the proposed treaty might be drawn 

 in contemplation of such action was correct. Throughout, the Department of Com- 

 merce and Labor cooperated with the State Department, both recognizing a treaty to 

 suppress pelagic sealing as the controlling purpose to be attained. The treaty was 

 signed in 1911. It is predicated upon a division of the proceeds of male seals to be 

 taken, just as had been indicated. In no respect was the traditional attitude of this 

 Government deviated from until the law of 1912, in its provision for a five-year closed 

 season, virtually repudiated the representations upon which the United States dele- 

 gates in the convention had secured the consent of the delegates of the other countries 

 to the terms of the treaty as it now stands. 



THE CHARGE THAT THE RULES THEMSELVES WERE NOT OBSERVED. 



As to the observance of the rules, I have every confidence in the men who were in 

 charge. Doubt would be removed by the manner in which they have stood attacks 

 upon them. If all employees in the several departments can do as well, the Govern- 

 ment is to be congratulated. Each year some new man was sent to the islands for the 

 very purpose of exercising every precaution. Throughout the department had the 

 benefit of the observation and advice of most experienced men. The members of 

 the advisory board acted upon the invitation of the Government, and without compen^ 

 sation save the undeserved notoriety to which they have been subjected. For a mis- 

 conduct of none of them would it be possible to invent a motive. When they sub- 

 mitted their recommendations to me, the last killing season under the lease was closed, 

 and thereafter the Government alone gained or lost, whatever the policy. No one 

 denies that every skin taken was accounted for and sold to best advantage at public 

 sale. With the number of seals killed remaining about the same, the Government's 

 net returns more than trebled the first year after the lease closed and the Government 

 took charge. If it were true (and this has been conclusively disproved) that too young 

 seals had been killed, the Government would still get the proceeds, and no one else. 

 So long as the proper reservation was made the herds could suffer no injury even then; 

 and the only question would have been one of discipline for the agents in charge. 



The plain truth is this: The law restricted the killing of seals to those 1 year old. 

 With all that has been said, Congress through all the years of the leases and afterwards 

 made no change. The executive department, however, by rules, raised the age to 2 

 years, and in doing this acted upon the advice of these same men of experience. After 

 pelagic sealing was abolished these rules raised the age to 3 years. Throughout the 

 aim of the department's rules has been to secure the conservation of the herds. For 

 the consumption of the natives the killing of very young seals was always permitted. 

 That here and there a female or a male seal under age was killed by accident is not 

 denied. Remembering that the seals are in a wild state, this seems unavoidable. 

 But the reports from the handlers of the skins in London demonstrate that such acci- 

 dents were very rare. The attempt to build a charge of misconduct against these 



