ass Anderson Alaskan Fur Seals THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES CANADIAN QUESTIONS. / ALASKAN FUR SEALS. DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE FUR-SEAL QUESTION, AND THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEALING INDUSTRY, 1867-1906. REPORT PREP. RED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE By CHANDUEIR P. ANDERSON, leoe. Gotchmmziitt Pbintimo OFrioK. leoe. CANADIAN QUESTIONS. ALASKAN FUR SEALS. LO.MATIC NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE FUR-SEAL (IIESTION, AND THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEALING INDUSTRY, REPORT PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE CHANDLER P. ANDERSON, iso«. WASIIINaTON I CiOVl-.nNMKN'V l»KINTIN«l OkfICK. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Part I. Diplomatic negotiations foi- the settlement of the Alaskan fur-seal er taken. The other expenses to which it hound itself were part of the risk of the venture. The catch for 1893 was lawfully limited to 7,500, and the company accepted and disposed of the skins. It can not now be heard to insist that that limitation was in breach of the obligations of the Government, for which, though still claim- ing the contract to he outstanding, it is entitled to recover damages. " 6o The following propositions seem to be established by the decision of the Supreme Court in this case: A restriction imposed by treaty, or act of Congress, or order of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, limiting the number of seals which may be taken under this lease in any one year, entitles the lessee to a reduction of the $60,000 rental in the proportion that the maximum number of 100,000 seals under the statutory limit bears to the restricted number permitted to be taken. Such restriction in the number permitted to be taken does not entitle the lessee to any reduction of the tax of $2 per seal or the bonus of $7.62^ per seal, or of the other expenses which the com- pany assumed under the lease. It seems that the lessee would be entitled to treat the contract as rescinded if such restriction amounted to a prohibition against the taking of any seals. So, also, in case the number permitted to be taken was less than could as a matter of fact be taken without injury to the herd, or if the number permitted was insufficient to make it profitable to continue the lease, it seems that then the lessee would be entitled to treat the contract as rescinded. The Government, however, is not liable to damages for breach of the contract under any of these contingencies. This exemption from liability was based, in the decision of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the regulations presumably would be made by the Government in an effort to protect the seals from extinction and that the regulation of that branch of commerce involved the exercise of governmental power as a sovereign and not as a mere proprietor, and that such governmental power could not be contracted away. PROPOSALS FOR TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING THE KILLING'^OF SEALS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS. Apart from the regulations under the lease the question of temporarily prohibiting the killing of seals on land has been dis- cussed in diplomatic correspondence and before Congress on several occasions. The question first came up in the negotiations with Great Britain for the modus Vivendi oi 1891, which was renewed and continued in 1892. On the part of Great Britain there was a disposition to insist that seal killing be suspended altogether, on land as well as at sea; but it was urged on the part of the United States that inasmuch as the lessees of the islands were obliged under the lease to feed and care for the natives, and to incur other expenses, it was necessary that they be permitted to kill a substantial number of seals for the 6i support and maintenance of the inhabitants of the islands. A maxi- mum of 7,500 seals annuall}'- was therefore agreed upon, as appears from the terms of the inodus vivendi. The question again came up in 1893, after the award of the Paris Arbitration Tribunal. Appended to this award was a declaration recommending that the two Governments agree to prohibit — "any killing of fur seals either on land or at sea for a period of two or three years, or at least one year, subject to such exceptions as the ,two Governments might think proper to admit." The arbitrators on the part of the United States accepted this recommendation, but the British arbitrators refused to approve it. Promptly after the award was made the United States asked the concurrence of Great Britain in adopting this recommendation, although the total suspension of the killing of seals on the land was not regarded as essential to the safety of the herd, and it was well understood that such total suspension of land killing might be a distinct disadvantage to the interests of the United States. This is clearly pointed out in the correspondence exchanged at that time between the Secretary of State and Mr. Bayard, the American am- bassador at London. On September 30, 1893, Mr. Bayard wrote: "To suspend wholly, even for a single year, the seal catch on the islands might be highly prejudicial to the United States or their lessees, and as in the provisional or temporary arrangement of May, 1S93, between Russia and Great Britain a limit of 30,000 seals on the Russian islands was agreed to it would seem a very reasonable figure to adopt for the catch on the Pribilof Islands, whose product had been supposed to be about double that of the Russian islands." On October 27, 1893, Mr. Gresham responded that — "The President is not now prepared to say how far we ought to go in limiting the seal catch, should Great Britain make a demand of that kind. ******* " If Great Britain finally insists that only a limited number of seals shall be taken on the islands, and you must yield or fail in the effort to obtain a satisfactory understanding for concurrent action, you can report the fact to me and I will communicate it to the Presi- dent for his direction." Great Britain made no response to this suggestion, and it was renewed in January of the following year, Secretary Gresham stating to the British ambassador at Washington that — "The United States would be glad to prohibit entirely for a period of three years, or for two years, or for one year, the killing of seals. " 62 No response was made to this proposition by Great Britain, and the United States found it impossible to secure Great Britain's con- sent to a suspension of sealing, even temporarily, on any terms, and it therefore does not appear what Great Britain's position on the question of killing the seals on land was at that time. PROPOSALS IN CONGRESS FOR SETTLING THE SEAL CONTROVERSY BY DESTROYING THE SEALS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS. Congress has twice given serious consideration to the question of^ putting an end to pelagic sealing by putting an end to the seal herd, unless Great Britain should come to some satisfactory agreement on the subject. The proposition first came up in 1896, when a bill was introduced providing that if the President found himself una- ble to secure an agreement with Great Britain, Japan, and Russia for the protection of the seal herd the Secretary of the Treasury should kill, once for all, every seal on the Pribilof Islands and sell their skins for the profit of the Government. There was no provi- sion for the preservation of even a nucleus for breeding purposes. This bill was favorably reported in the House by the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Dingley, then chairman of that Committee, said in the course of the report, after pointing out that Japan and Russia were ready to join in an agreement: "It is believed that it is Canada that is standing in the way and holding back Great Britain from cooperating with us in the preser- vation of the seal herd, and that when Canada sees that we propose to take summary measures to end not only the inhumanity that con- signs thousands of young seals to slow starvation, but also the farce by which we are expending large sums of money to police Bering Sea practically to aid her pelagic sealers in the work of extermina- ting seals, she will no longer endeavor to prevent England from uniting with us in efficient measures to save the seal herds to the world. " If, however, we fail in this, as we have failed under present con- ditions, notwithstanding we have been urging Great Britain for more than a year to unite with us in measures to preserve seal life, then considerations of mercy, as well as of economy and justice, demand that we should stop the further cruel starvation of thou- sands of seal pups by taking what seals are left and disposing of their skins and covering into the Treasury the proceeds, which would probably reach $5,000,000." The bill passed the House unanimously. In the Senate, however, the bill failed to pass, although it was favorably reported by a majority of the Foreign Relations Commit- tee. Senator Morgan, one of the members of the Fur-Seal Arbitra- tion Tribunal, made a minority report from the Foreign Relations Committee, in which he said: 63 "It can not be too firmly stated, or too often, it seems, in view of the apparent indifference to the fact, that the award of the Tribunal of Arbitration had no other purpose, result, or effect than to insert in that treaty and to secure by its sanctions the mutual and definite rights and obligations of both the high contracting powers as to which they had been unable to come to an agreement. "In this award certain rights of the United States were left undisturbed and unquestioned, the same not having been submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration. Among these are: " I. The free and full assertion of every right and claim of right to the ownership and control of the Alaskan seal herds that the United States may choose to assert, as against any Government except Great Britain. "2. The right to regulate and restrain our own people in all their conduct in reference to fur seals in any waters of the oceans or seas, and to punish their violation of those legal restrictions. "3. The right to regulate the conduct of all persons on land and within the 3-mile limit around the Pribilof Islands, in respect of the fur seals. H< * 4c 4: Hi ^ =H "The protection of the seal herds was the sole object and purpose of the many diplomatic communications between the Governments that led up to the treaty and to the award and to the subsequent statutes and additional regulations for their enforcement. ^ ^ if * 'i' * * " If the treaty, as it is completed by the award, is not satisfactory to the United States, the remedy is by its abrogation, and not the violation of it by destroying the subject to which it relates. ******* "The treaty and the Paris award which completed it set forth those mutual interests and purposes (preservation of seals and seal- ing industry) as the consideration upon which the mutual obligations and duties rested. None of them included or contemplated the destruction of the seal herds in any emergency, and such destruction by either Government, or through its permission or neglect, violates the whole spirit and purpose of th,e treaty and the award made under its authority by the Paris Tribunal. "Great Britain has the clear right to insist that this bill, if it becomes a law, is a violation of the treaty rights of that Government in respect of the fur seals." Senator Sherman joined in the minority report, expressing his views as follows: "I place my opposition to this bill upon the ground that the pro- posed destruction of the seals by the United States is a cruel act, not to be justified even though the same result may be brought about by pelagic sealing. The measure proposed is dictated by ap- parent spite because some other power will destroy them in another way. It is better to take the chances that Great Britain will give to the subject kinder and more generous treatment and join with the United States in making new regulations to preserve seal life. " (For. Rels. Committee Reports, vol. 8, pp. 380-387.) 64 In 1902 the question again came up, when a bill was introduced in Congress providing for a revision of the Paris award regulations with the object of abolishing pelagic sealing, and in case a modus Vivendi for the suspension of sealing pending such revision was not agreed to before the beginning of the following season the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized, with the approval of the President, to kill the entire Alaskan fur-seal herd, with the exception of 1,000 males and 10,000 females. This bill was favorably reported to the House by a majorit}^ of the Ways and Means Committee, who held that— " Unless we stop the pelagic hunter in his work of destroying the female seals in Alaskan waters outside of the 60-mile zone, which entails the starvation of their pups left on the Pribilof Islands awaiting their return from the feeding grounds, there is no justifica- tion in our trying to preserve the seal herd for him to destroy." (H. R. Report, No. 2303, 57th Cong., ist sess.) A minority report was also made from this Committee, which, after citing the minority report above referred to of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concluded as follows: "If the British Government, abusing the freedom of the seas, is willing to allow its subjects to destroy one of the choice gifts of Providence to mankind and to annihilate the herd, it should be per- mitted by the Government of the United States to bear the respon- sibility unaided and alone. Certainly this Government should not assume a heavy share by taking part in the final act of extermina- tion." (H. R. Report, No. 2303, part 2, 57th Cong., ist sess.) The bill failed to become a law. While this bill was under con- sideration in Congress the British Columbia Legislative Assembly on June 1 1, 1902, passed the following resolution with reference to it : "Whereas, British subjects have faithfully observed the regula- tions made pursuant to the award, dated the 15th August, 1893, for the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal in the Ber- ing Sea; "And whereas, it is announced that the Government of the United States of America have lately passed an act in effect that unless a modus Vivendi prohibiting the killing of seals be secured at the open- ing of the pelagic season of 1902, authority will be given to kill all the male and female seals, with the exception of 10,000 females and 1,000 males ; "And whereas, the exercise of such a presumed authority is con- trary to the finding of the Bering Sea Tribunal, and a direct violation of the spirit of the agreement entered into between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States, and an unwarrantable inter- ference with and infringement upon the undoubted rights of British subjects: 65 '■''Be it therefore resolved. That this House would view with regret the commission of such act, and in the opinion of this House an humble address be presented to His Honor the Lieutenant-Governor, asking him to communicate with the Dominion Government, protest- ing against such action, and urging that all proper steps be taken to bring this matter to the attention of the Imperial Government." Apparently, it has not occurred to the Canadian sealing interests that if the destruction of the seal herd on land by the United States is " a direct violation of the spirit of the agreement entered into between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States," then it is equally a violation of such agreement for the Canadian sealers to destroy the seal herd ty pelagic sealing. Heretofore the answer of the Canadians would have been that pelagic sealing was not a menace to the existence of the herd. Under the present con- ditions, however, such an explanation can hardly be regarded as sufficient. Notwithstanding the introduction in Congress of the two bills above referred to for the destruction of the seal herd, this Govern- ment is not committed to that plan. So far as Congress is con- cerned the bills were defeated on Senator Morgan's report, which distinctly affirmed the obligation of both Governments to preserve the seals as long as the treaty existed. So far as the Executive branch of the Government is concerned, Secretary of State Sherman, in his letter of May lo, 1897 (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 290), which was communicated to Lord Salisbury, stated that although the proposition to abandon negotiations and destroy the seals on the islands had been seriously made in Congress as the speedy end to a dangerous controversy, yet such a measure had not been enter- tained by the Department of State. REPORT BY SENATE COMMITTEE ON TERRITORIES RECOMMENDING SUSPENSION OF KILLING OF SEALS ON THE ISLANDS. In January, 1904, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Territories, consisting of Senators Dillingham, Burnham, Nelson, and Patterson, who had visited the seal islands during the preced- ing summer, made a report on the fur-seal industry. After briefly reviewing the question and stating as a fact "that the killing of young seals on the islands since 1896 has been so close that no young male life has been permitted to pass over the slaughter fields on to the breeding grounds," they made the following recommendation: "The committee therefore recommend that a suspension of all killing by the lessees of the seal islands be made at once and indefi- nitely, and that the Government of the United States shall attempt to reopen and conclude negotiations with the Government of Great F S- 66 Britain looking to a revision of existing rules and regulations which govern the taking of seals in the open waters of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, and to enter upon negotiations with the Governments of Russia and Japan to the end that all pelagic sealing may be stopped; and if, after a reasonable length of time, the Gov- ernment fails to secure a proper revision and enforcement of such rules and to conclude such negotiations, then the Secretary of Com- merce may, with the approval of the President, reduce the surplus female life of the herd on the Pribilof Islands to 10,000." During the same session of Congress a joint resolution was intro- duced directing the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to suspend all killing of male fur seals on the Pribilof Islands, to continue indefi- nitely, providing, however, that 5,500 male seals might be killed under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to pro- vide food for the natives and the skins to be sold by him and the proceeds covered into the Treasury. The Committee on Ways and Means, having this resolution under consideration, took testimony on the subject on March 9 and 10, and examined, among others, Mr. Frank H. Hitchcock, Chief Clerk of the Department of Commerce and Labor, Hon. Charles J. Faulkner, representing the lessees of the islands, and Mr. Henry W. Elliott. Mr. Elliott urged strongly the adoption of the resolution on the ground that the killing on land had become so close that even the seals under two years were now taken, and that if the herd was to be preserved land killing should be stopped altogether. Meanwhile, the question of pelagic sealing could be taken up with Great Britain with good chances of success, if the resolution was passed eliminating commercialism on the American side. Mr. Faulkner, on behalf of the North American Commercial Company, controverted Mr. Elliott's statement that seals under two years old were being killed on the islands, and cited the unanimous opinion of all the other seal experts in support of the position that the number of male seals on the islands could be still further reduced without threatening the existence of the herds. He showed that the restrictions which had already been imposed upon the killing on land were due to the injury to the herd resulting from pelagic sealing, and he urged that instead of passing the proposed resolu- tion, which in effect would destroy the lease without compensation to the company, negotiations be again undertaken with England, Japan, and Russia to stop pelagic sealing. Mr. Hitchcock, representing the Department of Commerce and Labor, opposed the adoption of the resolution. The position of the Department was stated to be that if the herd could be saved without a complete suspension of killing by the lessee it would be a mistake to take such action, because the result would be a larger surplus of 6/ male seals to become the prey of pelagic sealers. He denied Mr. Elliott's statement that seals under two j'^ears old were taken by the lessees to any extent, and stated that the Government proposed to cut down their present quota of 30,000 annually to 15,000, and to reserve out for breeding purposes 1,000 three-year old males and 1,000 two-3^ear old males, and absolutely prevent the killing of any under two years old. He was very doubtful if the lessee under such regulations would get the full 15,000 allowed, and this has since proved to be the case. He pointed out that the regulation of the seal business on land was already under the Department of Com- merce and Labor, with adequate power to impose restrictions, and the adoption of this resolution requiring the Secretary to do what under existing laws he was at liberty to do in his discretion would deprive this Government of the advantage which it now has in negotiating with Great Britain, in that it could no longer offer to suspend killing on land as an inducement for similar action at sea. The resolution was not adopted. PART III. The Sealing Industry. 69 The Sealing Industry. CANADIAN. Estitnated value of vessels in i8g8. As appears from the diplomatic negotiations reviewed elsewhere, the settlement of the sealing question by the paj^ment of an agreed sum to the Canadian sealers had been suggested by the United States in 1897 and favorably received by the Canadian representa- tives. Soon thereafter the Canadian sealers organized themselves into an association known as the "Victoria Sealers' Association," with the Hudson Bay Company and R. P. Rithet & Co., of Victoria, as trustees. With respect to this organization the United States consul at Victoria reported (January 6, 1898) that the owners of the sealing vessels were ready to sell the entire fleet, numbering over fifty vessels, for $500,000 and to guarantee that the Canadian Govern- ment would not allow any vessels to clear for sealing from Canadian ports thereafter. It was represented that the organization was sufficiently powerful to make good this guaranty and that the com- manding position of its members and the additional strength result- ing from organization would enable them to control tlie political situation and public policy of British Columbia and exercise an important influence over the action of the Dominion Government. He further reported that it was understood at Victoria that the North American Commercial Company, the lessees of the Pribilof Islands, would supply the money and be the real purchasers of the fleet in the proposed settlement. Subsequently, after the negotiations then in progress had led to the formation of the Joint High Commission between the United States and Great Britain on Canadian questions, these sealers ap- pointed Capt. J. G. Cox, of Victoria, as their representative to present their interests and conduct the negotiations on their behalf before the Joint High Commission. A statement was accordingly prepared by him (see statement marked "A" in the appendix, p. 109), 71 72 showing that the sealing fleet at that time consisted of 54 vessels, having an aggregate tonnage of 3,713 tons. The value of these vessels was estimated as follows: Value of hull, spars, and rigging $445,935-60 Value of equipment (not including Bering Sea trip) 174,445.25 Total value of vessels and equipment 620, 380. 85 These values, as appears from this statement, were given on the basis of $165 per ton as the average value of vessels and equipment, without provisions or sea stores. In addition to the value of the vessels a further sum was claimed on behalf of the sealers as compensation for being compulsorily deprived of their occupation. These figures were submitted by the Commissioners for critical examination to two experts on the value of vessels — Capt. Herbert S. Taylor, selected on the part of Canada, and Capt. I. E. Thayer, selected on the part of the United States. Captain Thayer and Captain Taylor differed so entirely in their estimates that they found it impossible to agree on a joint report. (For Captain Thayer's estimates, see Table "B" in the appendix, p. III.) Captain Taylor (Canadian) reported that in his opinion the cost of sealing schooners in Victoria — hull, spars, sails, anchors, and full equipment for sea, without sealing outfit — averaged, per ton, $139.35, ^"d that the value of the sealing outfit would average $41.52, making a total valuation per ton of $180.87. From this, however, he made a deduction for depreciation of an average per ton of $16. 72, leaving the value at an average per ton of $164. 15. In arriving at the amount to deduct for depreciation he adopted the following rule: Depreciation per ton on vessels — Up to 5 years $5. 00 From 5 to 10 years 10.00 From 10 to 15 years 15.00 From 15 to 20 years 25.00 From 20 to 25 years 40.00 Over 25 years 50. 00 On this basis Captain Taylor's valuation was as follows: 54 vessels, tonnage 3,713: First cost 1495,048 Depreciation 61, 575 Value after depreciation 433, 473 Value of outfit 138, 888 Total value of vessels and outfit 572, 361 n Captain Thayer's v^aluation, on the other hand, was as follows: 33 vessels: Present value, exclusive of outfit $125, 450 Present value of outfit 67, 910 21 vessels: Present value, exclusive of outfit 57i 055 Present value of outfit 29, 458 Total value, 54 vessels and outfits . 279, '/J A revaluation was called for on 2>Z vessels, which presumably were the only ones then regularly engaged in the business. Captain Taylor's revaluation of these t,2> vessels, including outfit, was $455,611 ; Captain Thayer's revaluation of these 33 vessels, including outfit, was $187,410 — a difference in valuation of 1,268,201. With these figures as a basis the British Commissioners announced that after giving every consideration to the facts and circumstances they had concluded that $750,000 should be paid for the money claim on behalf of the Canadians. It was stated that this amount — " includes the value of the fishing fleet of 54 vessels of a tonnage of 3,713 tons, including outfit, and also an allowance for the good will, as it were, of their business, based upon three years' profits and a reasonable sum to pay a gratuity or allowance to the captains of the fleet and a few others who have been for many years engaged in this sealing business and made their living by it." (Letter, December 6, 1898, Sir Louis Davies to General Foster.) It was further stated that additional compensation would be expected for the relinquishment of sealing as a national right. The United States Commissioners made a counter proposition, proposing $500,000 in full settlement for the sealers' interests, and as an additional concession proposed to leave the vessels in the posses- sion of the Canadian owners, although their full value was repre- sented in the amount offered, in addition to a substantial amount for profits, good will, and bonus to captains. At the time the negotiations were suspended it was thought that the British Commissioners were prepared to accept the proposal of $500,000 made on the part of the United States, if a satisfactory compensation was also made for the abandonment of the national right of sealing. Present value of vessels, based on Canadian estimates. The Sealers' Association above referred to was reorganized in 1900 into a corporation known as the "Victoria Sealing Company." This company owned 44 vessels, which, with three owned outside of the company, comprised the entire Victoria sealing fleet at that time. This company has an authorized capital stock of $500,000, divided 74 into 40,000 shares of the par value of $12.50 each, of which 33,479 shares were issued at par when the company was organized, repre- senting an outstanding capital of $418,487.50. Of this amount $394,558.35 was carried on the books of the company as the cost of the schooners acquired on the formation of the company. The schooner account shown on the balance sheet of the company November 30, 1905, appears as follows: " By schooner cost account acquired on formation of company (after deducting value of Hatzic, Triumph, Penelope, and C. D. Rand lost and Mermaid sold) $35 1> 005.85" This amount, therefore, is now carried as the book value of the remaining 39 vessels after deducting the values of the four lost and the one sold. The accounts of the company show, however, that no deduction in this account has been made since the organization of the company for depreciation of values for use and age. The necessity for making a substantial deduction for deprecia- tion will be evident from an examination of the present condition of the fleet, which in brief is as follows: Fifteen vessels, including most of the oldest vessels, of the fleet are no longer in regular use and with probably a few exceptions have had very little, if anything, spent on them for repairs since the organization of the company. Of this number eight have not been sealing since 1902, two of them made their last voyages respectively in 1901 and 1900, and the other five have not been out since 1898, or prior to the organization of the company. One of the vessels included in the above valuation, the Fatvn^ was reported lost in 1905, so that its entire value must be deducted. The remaining 23 vessels belonging to the company have been used with considerable regularity for the past eight years and pre- sumably the amounts spent by the company for repairs, averaging about $8,000 annually, have been spent on them, although a propor- tionate share of such repairs must be apportioned to the five vessels lost and the one sold. (See Table "C" in the appendix, p. 113.) Nevertheless, a considerable amount must be deducted from their book value on account of depreciation. Five of them are between 10 and 15 years, eleven are between 15 and 20 years, five are between 20 and 25 years, and one is over 25 years. In the five years which have elapsed since the values of these vessels were entered on the books of the company each of these vessels has passed into the next lower class in value, and according to the rule adopted by Captain Taylor, the Canadian expert, in 1898, the deductions which should now be made in the values for these vessels for depreciation on account of age are as follows: 75 BeHveen ^ and lo years, $JO per ton. Tons. Deduction. The Casca 67 X |io = $670 Between 10 and i^ years, $1^ per ton. 1. Ida Etta, 12 years 73 2. Ocean Rover, 10 years 63 3. Sadie Turpel, 14 years 61 4. Victoria, 14 years 68 5. Zilla May, 10 years 66 Total 331 X 15 = 4.965 Between /j" and 20 years, $2^ per ton. 1. Ainoko, 15 years 76 2. C. G. Cox, 15 years 82 3. Carrie C. W., 18 years 92 4. Diana, 17 years 54 5. Director, 16 years 87 6. Dora Sieward, 15 years 98 7. Florence M. Smith, 18 years 99 8. Libbie, 17 years 93 Q. Otto, 17 years 86 10. Vera, 19 years 67 Total 834 X 25 = 20,850 Between 20 and 2^ years, $40 per ton. 1. AUie I. Alger, 21 years 79 2. Annie E. Paint, 21 years 82 3. E. B. Marvin, 22 years 123 4. Geneva, 22 years 107 5. Oscar and Hattie, 22 years 85 6. Teresa, 23 years 7° Total 546 X 40 = 21,840 Over 2^ years, $^0 per ton. City of San Diego 5i X 50 = 2.550 50, 875 From Captain Taylor's report it appears that deductions for depreciation on account of age are not affected by ordinary repairs, which are a constant necessity in sealing vessels, so no account need be taken here of the expenditures for repairs. In addition to the foregoing deductions tlie value of the Fawn,- reported lost last season, as above noted, must also be deducted. This vessel was valued by the sealers in their statement submitted to the Joint High Commission in 1898 at upwards of $10,000. Pre- sumably it was entered on the books of the company at a somewhat lower valuation than was proposed as a selling price to the United 76 States. It appears from the company's accounts, as above stated, that the entire fleet of 44 vessels was valued by the company at ^394,558.35, which shows an average valuation per vessel of about $9,000. This vessel was smaller than the average, being only 6;^ tons, but it was also newer than the average, being only 8 years old in 1900. It is, therefore, fair to assume that it was entered at about the average price of $9,000. As no depreciation in value has been deducted from the book values in the company's accounts as shown the full original value on the books is the amount to be deducted. A further deduction from the book value of the company's vessels must be made for the depreciation of the 15 vessels above referred to as out of repair and no longer in use. According to Captain Taylor's report sealing vessels depreciate at a regular rate with age, even when kept in good repair and a seaworthy condition. It is fair to assume, therefore, that vessels will depreciate more and faster when no repairs are made and, as in this case, they are allowed to lie idle and rot in the harbor. Five of these 15 vessels, as above stated, have never been used by the company and their average age is upwards of 26 years, and their aggregate tonnage is 31S tons. Under Captain Taylor's rule their depreciation, even if kept up by repairs, would be $50 per ton. It would not seem unreasonable, under the circumstances, to add 50 per cent additional to this de- preciation, making a total deduction of $75 per ton. The deduction for these five vessels, therefore, would be 318 X $75, amounting to $23,850.00 The average age of the other 10 vessels no longer in use is upwards of 22 years, and their aggregate ton- nage is 668. The deduction for these, under Captain Taylor's rule, even if kept in good repair, would be $40 per ton, but for the same reason as before an additional deduction should be made for their more rapid depre- ciation in their neglected condition. Under the cir- cumstances $15 per ton additional does not seem unreasonable, making a total of $55 per ton. The deductions for these vessels, therefore, would be 668 X $55, amounting to 36,740.00 Making a total depreciation for these 15 vessels of 60,590.00 The foregoing amounts, therefore, must be deducted from the valuation at which the vessels of the company are now carried on its accounts. / 7 This valuation for 39 vessels is given in the balance sheet of November, 1905, as $351,005-85 Deductions : (i) Depreciation on 23 vessels, shown above to be $50,875. 00 (2) The book value of the Fa7vn, lost in 1905, estimated at 9,000.00 (3) The depreciation on the 15 vessels not in use, shown above to be... 60,590.00 ■ 120,465.00 Balance -. 230,540.85 This valuation would give an average value of about $3,000 each for the 15 vessels, amounting in all to... 45,000.00 And an average value of about $8,000 each for the remaining 23 vessels, amounting in all to 184,000.00 Total 229,000.00 In addition to the value of vessels the company carries as assets in its balance sheet of November, 1905 — A gun account of $15,336.62 A boat account of 3,176.05 And some miscellaneous items not exceeding 1,500.00 Making a total of about 20,012.67 The entire assets of the company, therefore, as shown by its own accounts, after making the deductions for depreciation of values on the basis proposed by the representative of the sealing interests in 1898, would at the present time not exceed: Vessels and equipment $230,540.85 Boats, guns, stores, etc 20,012.67 Total 250,553.52 The three vessels owned outside of the Sealing Company do not require much attention. Two of them, the Enterprise Q.x\d the Jessie, were reported in December, 1903, by the United States consul at Victoria as really owned by citizens of the United States, and ap- parently they have not been sealing since. The other vessel is the Umbrina, of 99 tons and 18 years old. The three together would not average more, on the sealers' own estimate and with deductions for depreciation, than the other vessels of the fleet. Their value, therefore, may be taken as about $8,000 X 3, or $24,000 in all. It appears, therefore, that from the Canadian point of view, giving full credit to their figures for original values and estimating 78 deductions for depreciation by a method adopted by their own ex- perts, the present value of the entire Victoria fleet and sealing outfit would not exceed $275,000. American valuation. On the other hand, from the American point of view any such valuation as $275,000 would be regarded as much too high. From the reports of the United States consul at Victoria it would appear that the sealing fleet is now composed chiefly of rotten old hulks; that those not in use are thoroughly unseaworthy and of no value whatever, and that the balance are fast approaching the same con- dition. It will further be noted that Captain Thayer, the American expert on vessels in 1898, valued the 54 vessels then composing the fleet at only $279,873 and also that he valued the n best vessels of these, including outfit, at only $187,410. These figures certainly would not bear out a valuation of $275,000 for 41 vessels, 15 of which are wholly useless and the remaining 26 are mostly vessels which Cap- tain Thayer included in the 33 valued by him eight years ago. At that time the United States consul at Victoria investigated for the American Commissioners the cost of building sealing vessels at Victoria and reported (September 7, 1898) that — "Contractors say they would be glad to take contracts to build such schooners now for one hundred ($100) dollars per ton 'com- plete, hull and spars,' provided they were not rushed." For work under pressure they "would require $115 or$i2oper ton. " Schooners which cost no more than that new would be worth, after the depreciation for the age which the present vessels have reached, considerably less than the total computed on the Canadian figures, to say nothing of the additional deduction for loss of value from lack of repairs. Value of business. It appears that the business of pelagic sealing has not been a profitable one for some years past and it is rapidly growing worse. As early as 1897 Lord Salisbury wrote (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 271) that unfavorable conditions the preceding year had brought "many of the owners of sealing vessels to the verge of bankruptcy." Yet the pelagic catch of the Canadians for the pre- ceding season from all sources was over 55,000 skins, which is nearly 30 per cent larger than the largest catch of any year since. The catch for the past three years has been less than 15,000 skins each year. Obviously, there can not be much profit in the business under present conditions. The Victoria Sealing Company has paid but two dividends on its stock during the six years of its existence. One Of 50 cents per share, or 4 per cent on its outstanding capital, was declared at the close of the 1903 season. This was due to an unex- pected catch of 1,794 skins at Cape Horn. Nevertheless, in the fol- lowing 3'ear the company's balance sheet shows in its liabilities an overdraft of $69,526.82. The second dividend was declared at the close of the past season. This was a dividend of 20 per cent and was due to the high price of skins at the sales in London, owing to a scarcity of skins from other sources. In this connection it is important to note that no sealing was done by the Japanese sealers last season in Bering Sea. Notwithstanding this dividend the man- agers of the company have recently assured the United States con- sul at Victoria (report of January 9, 1906) that they were still ready to dispose of their vessels and stop pelagic sealing on the basis pro- posed before the Joint High Commission. This has been the attitude of the Victoria sealing interests ever since 1898. They organized themselves into an association and afterwards into a company partly for the purpose of arranging for a sale of their business, and the reports of the United States consul at Victoria have shown that from time to time they have informed him voluntarily of their desire to sell out. In connection with this question the following extract from a report made by Mr. Lembkey, agent in charge of the Pribilof Islands, to the Secretar}- of Commerce and Labor (January 6, 1906) may be of interest: "As to the approximate amount which will be required to com- pensate the Canadians in case a discontinuance of pelagic sealing on their part should be required, I learned the following in 1903 from confidential sources: "The person alleged to be the principal owner of shares in the sealing company is R. P. Rithet, of San Francisco. About May or June, 1903, when it was thought the High Joint Commission would convene the following winter to consider the Bering Sea question, Mr. Rithet was approached by a gentleman, who called Mr. Rithet's attention to the depletion of the seal herd and the probable early collapse of the company. It was suggested to Mr. Rithet that it would be better for the company to take what it could get from this Government for its sealing interests, in consideration of a cessation of pelagic sealing, rather than to have these interests on its hands a dead loss. "Mr. Rithet was favorably impressed with the proposition and the following plan was suggested to him as the best means of accom- plishing the required end: " I. Mr. Rithet, or some other person in tiu- confidence of the Canadian Government, was to obtain an option on the shares of the Sealing Company. "2. After obtaining this option, the holder thereof (l)eing practi- cally the sole owner of the Canadian sealing industry) was to go before the Canadian Government, assuming the position that the 8o depletion of the seal herd had rendered pelagic sealing unprofitable; that its continued decrease would, of itself, soon put the Canadian sealers out of business; that the sealing vessels were fast deteriora- ting, and that it was obviously better to sell out for a good, round sum than to permit the business to die of its own accord; that, as the sole owner of the industry, he had the right to ask his Govern- ment to cooperate to effect a sale of the company's holdings to the United States Government. "3. The holder of this option was to induce the Canadian Govern- ment, in consideration of the sale of the stock, to (a) abandon seal- ing, to (l>) pass laws prohibiting British subjects and vessels from engaging in that pursuit, and to (c) bind the matter by treaty between Great Britain and the United States. "The question of price was then considered, the gentleman asserting that $5 a share would be ample payment, but Mr. Rithet contending that $5 was too little; he thought, however, that the deal might be put through on a basis of $7.50 per share. At $7.50 per share, it would require $251,092.50 to purchase the entire issued stock. "Mr. Rithet told his visitor he would give the matter his atten- tion, and would soon leave for Victoria, where he would endeavor to tie up by option as much of the stock as he could. "Nothing further is known by me as to Mr. Rithet's subsequent action in the matter." The United States consul at Victoria reported (January 6, 1905) that the Sealing Company stock was offered for sale there at $2.50 per share. In 1904 it was quoted at $6 per share in San Francisco. No more recent quotations have been reported. The invasion of Bering Sea by the Japanese sealers is a recent development in the situation which may be expected to further de- press the value of the Canadian sealing interests. The Japanese, being unaffected by the Paris award regulations, are free to hunt with firearms and whenever and wherever they find seals outside of the United States territorial limits, which of course gives them great advantages over the Canadians, who are much hampered by these regulations in competing with them. Moreover, the Japanese hunting not only diminishes the number of seals available for Canadian hunting, but it is reported that the use of firearms by the Japanese so alarms the seals that hunting with spears, to which the Canadians are restricted, has become much more difficult. The coming of the Japanese may be bad for the seals, but it is likely in one way or another to hasten the settle- ment of the seal question. Local interests at Victoria^ British Columbia. It is shown by the official records of the sealing industry that at the time of its greatest prosperity only about six hundred white men and a like number of Indians were employed as hunters and crew. At the present time the number has shrunk to less than half. 8i It appears, however, on the authority of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that the white men so employed did not strictly represent local interests. Sir Wilfrid stated on this subject, in writing to Mr. Foster (Novem- ber 24, 1897) : ■'The prohibition of pelagic sealing for a year would practically destro)'^ the business for se\-eral years, because the masters, the mates, and the white crews, for the larger part belonging to other parts of Camada, would leave British Columbia." (Foreign Rela- tions, 1897, p. 321.) Apart from the question of the men actually employed on the vessels, however, the people of Victoria have had a substantial inter- est in the past in having the business continued. It was stated at a meeting of the Victoria Board of Trade in December, 1903, that the industry then gave employment to over six hundred men and was the support of nearly two thousand persons and nearly two hundred thousand dollars was disbursed annually by the company among \'ictoria people. The accounts of the company show that this statement of the amount expended annually was substantially correct in 1903, but in the past two seasons the amount has diminished to less than $150,000 each year. The people of Victoria until the past year have always vigorously opposed any movement for the termination of the sealing business, as appears from the reports made from time to time by the United States consul there. At the extra session of Congress in November, 1903, a resolution was introduced in the Senate urging a readjustment of the sealing regulations. The United States consul at Victoria, British Colum- bia, reported (December 8, 1903) that this had created an impression there that steps would soon be taken to wind up pelagic sealing, and that — "Repeated meetings have been held by the Victoria Board of Trade on the subject, and some bitter language used by residents and business men of Victoria, in the fear that this industry, which as stated by them gives employment to over six hundred men, is the support of near two thousand persons, and the fountain from which near two hundred thousand dollars is disbursed here, may be abolished." As appears above, the sealing interests, which in 1900 had been organized into a corporation known as the "Victoria Sealing Com- pany," were more than willing to dispose of their entire fleet on the same basis which was agreed to by the Joint High Commission. The fleet had cost a large amount for repairs and liad greatly depreci- ated in value since then; not more than half the vessels were in use V s 6 82 and no new ones had been added; the company had not declared a dividend up to that time; and the Japanese, who were not subject to the restrictions of the Paris award regulations, had invaded Bering Sea and cut into the Canadian profits. At these meetings at Victoria, therefore, the members of the Sealing Company "stoutly defended their right to sell their property if they saw fit." Never- theless, the Victoria Board of Trade, by a vote of 3 to i, adopted the following resolution: "Whereas, the Victoria, B. C, Board of Trade has reason to believe that powerful influence, alien in sympathy and character, is being brought to bear upon the Imperial and Dominion Governments to secure the abolishment of pelagic sealing under the British flag; "And whereas, the sealing industry being of great importance as a source of revenue to the city of Victoria, its abolishment would be a serious blow to the business interests of this community: '•''Be it therefore resolved. That the Victoria, B. C, Board of Trade does hereby urge upon the Imperial, Dominion, and Provincial Gov- ernments the great necessity of fostering, safeguarding, and per- petuating the sealing industry, and that this board most earnestly protests against consideration being given to any proposal whatever that shall tend to the abolishment of the rights of pelagic sealing to British subjects : '''•Be it further resolved, That copies of this preamble and resolu- tion be sent to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to the Colonial Secretary of the Imperial Government, to the Hon. Richard McBride, and to each Victoria member of the Dominion and Provincial Governments, and that the provincial government be urged to do all in its power to further safeguard the interests of Victoria and the Province." Afterwards, the following additional resolution was unanimously adopted: ^''Be it resolved. That no consideration be given to a long close season that shall not be equally binding upon all who are engaged in sealing on land or sea, and would further urge the necessity for the removal of such restrictions as at present place British subjects on an unequal footing with other nations in the sealing industry. ''''Be it further resolved. That a delegation be appointed to wait upon the provincial government to present this resolution and to report to this board from time to time. '''Be it further resolved, That this be embodied in the resolution just passed." On March 21, 1905, however, the United States consul at Victoria reported a change of feeling on the part of the people of Victoria. His report runs as follows: "The sentiment of the people of Victoria in regard to the dis- posal of the fleet and surrender of Canadian claim to pelagic sealing, which in 1903, as shown by action of Victoria Board of Trade, was strongly adverse, has altered greatly. The feeling is now not unfa- vorable to a settlement of this matter. S3 "It is also felt that events have so changed that the cessation of sealing would not have so disastrous an effect on the commercial interests of Victoria. The fisheries of British Columbia in halibut, salmon, etc., have so developed that employment could now more easily be secured for schooners and hunters now engaged in sealing. The removal of restrictions on salmon traps is also regarded as open- ing a new and extensive field for fishermen of this Province." In answer to a request from the Secretary of State for data show- ing a "comparison between the value of 20 per cent of the killing on land from a restored herd and the value of the present pelagic seal- ing," the Secretary of Commerce and Labor wrote (January 7, 1906) as follows : "The restored herd would probably yield 60,000 annually. At f,io.22j4 per skin this would amount to a revenue of ^613,500; 20 per cent of this would be $122,700. The gross value of the pelagic catch for 1904 was approximately $185,000, but the working net balance, after deducting the cost of operating the schooners, would not exceed $30,000. In 1905, however, owing to the large advance (40 per cent) in the market price of pelagic skins over the preceding year, they probably received for their catch in the neighborhood of $300,000, an increase in gross receipts over 1904 of over $100,000. It is surprising to note that while the price of the Pribilof Islands skins (known to the trade as 'Alaskas') remained stationary, *the price of pelagic skins taken from the same herd advanced 40 per cent. It is believed that 1905 was the most successful year for the Sealing Company occurring for some time past. "The annual statements of the Victoria Sealing Company (Lim- ited) give the working balances for the years 1902, 1903, and 1904 as follows: "1902 $11,331. 17 "1903 19. S52. 41 "1904 27,949. 71 "These working balances are taken from the company's own figures, and in arriving at them the cost of operating the schooners is first deducted from the gross income." In the 1905 account this item, which is called in the accounts " Balance from working account," was $102,228.53. In this connection it is stated in the company's annual report for 1905 that the prices for skins that year were "the highest ever obtained since the commencement of pelagic sealing, and must not be considered a criterion for future prices, and can only be accounted for in the shortage of skins (jn the market, as, owing to the war, there was a very small catch of Japan and Copper Island skins; also a shortage from other sources." 84 British interests. The world's market for seal skins has always been at London. Practically the entire annual catch of skins from all over the world is shipped there to be sold, and all but a very small percentage of the skins are dressed and dyed there for the furriers. In the case of the United States before the Paris Tribunal in 1893 it was stated that at that time ;^i,ooo,ooo was invested in the seal-skin industry in the city of London, and between two thousand and three thousand persons were employed directl}^ in the business there. The average wages paid to those employed in the British industry alone was about ^947,000 per annum. Mr. Dingley estimated that the total number given employment in London in 1896 on account of the seal-skin industry was 50,000 persons. (H. R. Report No. 2303, 57th Cong., ist sess.) The Canadian industry at that time represented a capital of about ^500,000 and gave employment to about six hundred white men. Most of the skins which were not dressed and dyed in London were prepared for the furriers in France, and between five hundred and six hundred persons were dependent upon the seal-skin industry there in 1892. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, pp. 269-285.) The number of persons now actually employed in the business in London is estimated by Mr. Alfred Fraser, of Lampson & Co., the London dealers, at less than five hundred, and the number of skins sold annually from all sources has diminished from about 200,000 in 1891 to about 65,000 in 1905. THE AMERICAN SEALING INDUSTRY. Pelagic sealing. The act of Congress approved December 29, 1897, prohibited pelagic sealing by citizens of the United States, or persons owing obedience to the laws or treaties of the United States, or persons belonging to or on board of a vessel of the United States, in the waters of the Pacific Ocean north of the 35th degree of north lati- tude, including Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk. This prohibition does not include pelagic sealing in southern waters, but no sealing vessels under the American flag have been reported in those waters since 1897, with the exception of one in 1898. It has been rumored that American capital is still invested and American citizens or persons owing obedience to the laws of this country have been engaged in sealing since 1897 under the British 85 and Japanese flags. Inquiry as to the accuracy of these reports has been made from time to time, and the matter is still under investigation. Pribilof Islands. The Secretary of Commerce and Labor is empowered by law and under the lease of the sealing privileges on these islands to impose restrictions limiting the number of seals which maybe taken annually. The killing of female seals has always been prohibited. Under the lease from 1870 to 1890 the maximum number per- mitted annually was 100,000. As a matter of fact, as shown by statistics prepared by the Department of Commerce and Labor, the number actually taken every year, except the first year and four others, exceeded this maximum, but the total number taken for the twenty years amounted to about 1,956,239, making an average of less than the maximum limit allowed for each year. Under the lease for twenty years from 1890, which is still in force, the lessees were restricted by the terms of the lease to 60,000 for the first year. The number actually taken was between 25,000 and 30,000. For the three following years the number was restricted by the modus viveiidi w'llh Great Britain to 7,500, although the num- ber actually taken in 1891 was in excess of this number, owing to the fact that the officials on the island were not notified of the re- strictions until after more than the permitted number of skins had been taken. Thereafter, regulations were imposed by the Government limit- ing the number of skins to be taken annually as follows: In 1894, 20,000; 1895, 15,000; 1896, 30,000; 1897, 20,000; and thereafter 30,000, until 1904, when the limit was reduced to 15,000, and the killing of seals under two years old was forbidden, and 2,000 two and three year bachelors were reserved. The official reports show that during the ten years from 1S94 to 1903, inclusive, the lessees were unable in any year to get the full quota allowed, except in 1896, when they took 30,654 skins. The number for five of these years averaged about 17,000, and for the other four years the aver- age was about 22,000. The numbers varied so from year to year that no regular rate of decrease can be shown by them. Under tlie new regulations in 1904 the number of skins taken was 13,128, and in 1905 the numl^er was 14,386. It appears, therefore, that under present conditions the lessees. are unable to get even the very lim- ited number allowed, from which it may be inferred that the num- ber actually taken represents every available seal that can be found. The above figures are taken from statistics furnished by tlie Depart- ment of Commerce and Labor. 86 The following table shows the decline of the Alaskan fur-seal herd from 1874 to 1905: Seals of all classes. Year. Surveys, etc. Bulls, cows, and pups. 1874 i8go iSqi 1897 1900 igo2 1904 190S Surveys of Elliott and Maynard, ordered by act approved April 22, 1874, on breeding grounds or rookeries Survey of Elliott, ordered by act approved April 5, 1890 /Survey of Canadian Commissioners iSurvey of American Commissioners Survey of Jordan-Thompson Commission Survey of United States Fish Commission (a decline of over 20 per cent since 1897) Estimate, based on ratio of decline, as above 4,700,000 959.655 I*! ,000,000 "1,000,000 450,000 360 , 000 224,000 243,101 223,009 * Estimated. Note.— This table is taken from the report of the Committee on Ways and Means, June 2, 1902, printed as H. R. Report No. 2303, S7th Cong., ist sess., with the numbers for 1904 and 1905 added from the reports of the Department of Commerce and Labor printed as Senate Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong., ist sess. Income derived by the Govermnent. Under the lease from 1870 to 1890 the United States received <^5, 981,036. 50, and under the lease of 1890 up to April i, 1906, $2,852,- 901.17, making a total of $8,833,937.67. These are the figures given in the letter of January 7, 1906, from the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to the Secretary of State and are intended to show only the payments made by the lessees to the Government. In addition to the amounts received by the Government from the lessees the Government is relieved of part of the expense of caring for the natives on the islands, which is imposed upon the lessees by the terms of the lease and should figure in the income account. The number of inhabitants on the islands has averaged about three hundred during the American occupation, and for the twenty years under the first lease they were paid as their earnings about $755,672.87. (Report of Charles J. Goff, Treasury agent, July 31, 1890, printed at p. 221, H. R. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., ist sess.) In addition to this the lessees constructed buildings and provided tools, live stock, sealing plant, boats, and furniture for their use, which were sold to the new lessees in 1890 for $67,264.02, appraised at that time as the full cash value. (/^. , p. 225.) The earnings of the natives have decreased since that time with the falling off in the number of seals taken, but the expense of supporting the natives still represents a considerable annual outlay. 87 The customs duty of 20 per cent ad valorem which the United States Government received from the importation of seal skins dressed and dyed in London was stated in 1890 to amount to about $375»ooo annual!)'. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, p. 270.) The expenses of administration were stated by Mr. Hitchcock, then Chief Clerk in the Department of Commerce and Labor, in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in 1904, to be about "^30,000 a year. Mr. Hitchcock further stated : ( i The expense of revenue cutters in Alaska waters last year I understand aggregated about $160,000, but only a portion of this sum can be properly charged to the seal service. Just how much I do not know. On the other hand, the amount of revenue derived from the seals has averaged about $200,000 a year." On the question of the cost of the patrol maintained in Bering Sea by the United States, Hon. John W. Foster stated in his letter of December 2, 1897, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Foreign Relations, 1897, p. 323) that the expense "for the past four years has averaged about $150,000 annually." In arriving at the net return to the United States Government from the sealing industry the cost of policing Bering Sea, the Treasury agents on the islands, the Bering Sea Arbitration Tribunal and Claims Commission and award for damages, and of the numer- ous investigations of the seal herd and conferences and reports on the same, and other considerable expenses incurred in connection with the negotiations on this question must also be deducted. Some of the expenses chargeable against this Government on this account between 1890 and 1895, inclusive, with some estimated amounts to 1901, are given in an official statement of the Secretary of the Treas- ury printed in House Document No. 197, 54th Congress, ist session, as follows: "As to the cost of policing Bering Sea and the North Pacific each year since 1890, I have to state that the honorable the Secretary of the Navy, upon request, has informed this Department that the cost of maintaining vessels of the United States Navy in these waters since 1890, including pay and rations of officers and crews and re- pairs to the vessels during and immediately following the perform- ance of said patrol duty, was as follows: " 1890 No patrol by Navy. "1891 1133,281.64 " 1892 233,931. 31 " 1893 183.067. 74 "1894 452,768. 18 " 1895 No patrol by Navy. 88 "The expenses incurred by revenue cutters in patrolling Bering Sea from 1890 to 1895, inclusive, including pay and rations of officers and men, are as follows: 1890 I36, 846. 66 1 891 51, 650. 70 1892 66, 672. 57 1893 47- 385. 79 1S94 56,439- 63 1895 148,677.74 " From these figures it would seem that the total cost of policing these waters during the period in question is $1,410,721.96. "The amounts which have been expended by the Government for the support of the native inhabitants of the seal islands of Alaska follow: "1893 |ii,337-32 " 1894 18,319.44 " 1895 25, 563. 21 ^* Amounts expended. " Policing waters $1, 410, 721. 96 " Support of natives *55, 219. 97 "Salaries and expenses of agents *22 7, 163. 04 " Cost of Paris Tribunal, 1893 234, 000. 00 " Damages paid pelagic sealers, Halifax, 1896, and cost of counsel. United States t486, 000. 00 " Cost of revenue marine patrol, 1896-1901 892, 062. 00 " Cost of natives' support, 1896-1901 150, 000. 00 " Cost of Treasury agents, 1896-1901 90, 000. 00 " Cost of Jordan-Thompson Commission, 1896-97 30, 000. 00 " Total cost, 1890-1901 3.575.166.97" Diminishing rentals. Under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of North American Commercial Company v. United States (171 U. S., 1 10) the lessees are entitled to a reduction of the $60,000 annual rental fixed by the lease, in the proportion that the number of 100,000 limited by statute as the maximum number of seals to be taken bears to the number permitted to be taken under the restric- tions imposed. No reduction is allowed, however, in the tax of $2 per skin and the bonus of $7.62^ per skin fixed by the lease. The Government is at liberty, without liability for damages for breach of contract, to prohibit absolutely the taking of seals, if deemed necessary to prevent the extermination of the herd. In that case, however, it seems that the lessees would be entitled to treat * Five hundred and seventy-two thousand and sixty-six dollars and thirty-eight cents expended by the Government from 1870-1905 for maintaining agents and for support of natives independently of the amounts expended by the lessees. (Lemlcy's Report to Secretary of Commerce and Labor, December 6, 1905.) t The amount finally paid to Great Britain in settlement of these claims was $473,151, from which should be deducted $83,073.72 and interest, being the amount realized by the United States from the sale of the Canadian vessels and property seized. 89 the contract as rescinded. The question of whether or not the Gov- ernment would be required to compensate the company for the diminished value of its plant and equipment resulting from such action was not passed upon by the Supreme Court in the case referred to. The decision in that case is reviewed more fully at page 56 et seq. of this report. Commercial i?iterests. Itdoes not appearthat the sealing industry as now carried on bene- fits directly any important commercial interests in this country. The work of dressing and dyeing the skins and preparing them for the furriers never became of any importance here. That branch of the business has always been almost wholly carried on in London. It is stated in the proceedings before the Fur Seal Arbitration Tri- bunal at Paris that about three hundred persons were then employed in dressing and dyeing seal skins in this country. (Fur Seal Arbi- tration, vol. 3, p. 53S.) Since then that branch of the business has diminished rather than increased. The extent and value of the busi- ness in London is shown elsewhere in connection with the British and Canadian interests in the sealing industry. The act of December 29, 1897, forbids the importation into this country of skins taken by pelagic sealers in the waters of tlie Pacific Ocean north of the 35th degree of north latitude. This excludes all but the skins taken on land from the American and Asiatic herds and those taken either on land or at sea south of the specified degree of latitude. In 1890, when the business had reached its highest point of pros- perity, the furriers, manufacturers, and merchants of the United States realized annually on Alaskan skins consumed in the United States the sum of $2,100,000, and the aggregate amount aiinuall)' paid as wages to those employed in the American manufactories was ^490,000, and the profit to the lessees annually was <^325,ooo over and above the wages paid to the natives on the island, amounting to about $40,000 annually. The number of persons employed in the manufacture and handling of seal skins in the United States at that time was estimated at 3,360. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, p. 280.) THE JAPANESE SEALING INDUSTRY. Japanese seal rookeries. The only seal rookeries which Japan has controUetl since the seal question became an international one are the rookeries on Robben Island and those which formerly existed on the Kiirile Islands. In both instances these islands came into the possession of Japan l)y cession from Russia. In J875 Russia ceded to Japan the inicKHc 90 and northern Kurile Islands where the rookeries of the Kurile seal herd were located, taking in exchange the southern end of Sakhalin Island, which in turn at the close of the Japan-Russian war in 1905 was re-ceded to Japan and carried with it Robben Island, lying in close proximity to its shore. Robben Island. — In the history of the seal question this island has always been grouped with the Commander Islands (Copper and Bering Islands), which belong to Russia, and its relation to the question will for convenience be considered herein elsewhere in con- nection with those islands. Attention is directed at this point, how- ever, to the fact that the acquisition of this island by Japan may be expected to give that country an interest in protecting the seals, which it has not had since the destruction of its Kurile Islands herd. Kurile Islands. — It was estimated that there were about 22,000 seals in all on the rookeries of these islands in 1881, when they first attracted the attention of foreign sealers. In that year the rookeries were raided and about 7,750 seals were taken. During the three following years about the same number was taken in all by the Japanese and foreign sealers, and in 1885 the foreigners again raided the islands and took about 6,500 skins. . This "practically cleaned out " the principal rookeries. In the two following years the for- eigners again visited the islands and took what was left, getting about 1,000 skins in each year. In 1896 it was reported that the remnant of the Japanese herd possibly amounted to fifty, but proba- bly to not more than thirty seals all told. (Report on Fur Seal Investigations, 1897, pt. 4, pp. 237-260, Stejneger's Report; Memo- randum issued in 1891 by Japanese Government on Seal Fisheries in Japan, Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 6, p. 228; and Report of British Commission, 1892, id., p. 135.) The responsibility for the raiding seems to have been about equally divided between the Canadians and Americans. The raids on these rookeries and their threatened destruction resulted in the enactment of laws by Japan intended to protect its seal herd and the sea otter, in which Japan was even more inter- ested than in seals. The attempt was futile, however, because Japan was unable to control her own ports or punish foreigners for violat- ing her laws, owing to the system of consular jurisdiction which was then in force. International cooperation was the only solution of the difficulty, and in 1887-88, when the United States attempted to secure the concurrence of Great Britain, Japan, and Russia in the protection of the Alaskan herd, Japan agreed, on condition that like protection be given to the Japanese seals and sea otter. At that date the Japanese herd might have been saved, but the pro- posed arrangement came to nothing, owing to the objections of the Canadians. 91 The Japanese legislation on the subject up to that time was briefly as follows: As early as 1884 an imperial decree was issued forbidding the hunting of the fur seal and sea otter in Japanese waters or territory except by persons with a special permit, and in 1886 a further impe- rial decree was issued requiring that all skins must be stamped on landing at Japanese ports, and forbidding the sale of unstamped skins, excepting, however, the skins of seals and sea otter caught within the territory of Russia or the United States with the permis- sion of those Governments. Owing to the consular jurisdiction above referred to, however, Japan was unable to enforce this law, as Great Britain refused to observe it. This action by Great Britain was cited by the Japanese delegates at the conference in 1897 at Washington between Russia, Japan, and the United States as an illustration of the difficulties encountered by Japan in dealing with this question on account of extraterritoriality. With reference to this law it was stated at that conference: " Japan wanted to pass a law to stop seal skins from coming into her ports except with a stamp on them. The consent of the powers was asked and given by all but Great Britain. She made no answer. Assuming a tacit consent the ordinance was issued and the skins on a British vessel were seized, but Great Britain said she had not agreed to the measure, and nothing could be done." In 1888 regulations were issued by the Japanese Government providing, in brief, that there should be an open season between April 15 and October 31 ; that the hunting in any one year should be permitted only in one of the three divisions into which the Kurile Islands were divided, the other two divisions being given in turn a two years' rest; and that sealing vessels must be specially licensed and fly a special flag. These regulations remained practically inop- erative. (Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, p. 322.) In the same year an exclusive license for sealing was issued to a Japanese company for a period of five years. Pelagic sealing. Until 1891 pelagic sealing was almost unknown on the Asiatic side of the Pacific, although foreign sealers had frequently visited and raided the rookeries, as above stated. In that and the following year, when Bering Sea was first closed to the Canadian and Ameri- can pelagic sealers by the modus vivendi with Great Britain, they began to cross over to the Asiatic waters. In 1892 eight schooners, all American, visited the Japanese coast and caught between 12,000 and 14,000 seals. These seals taken in these waters, although technically known as the Japanese coast catch, in reality belonged to the Russian 92 herd from the Robben and Commander Islands, from which at cer- tain seasons the seals pass along the Japanese coast and frequent certain feeding grounds there. The Japanese herd at this time had already been almost wholly destroyed, as above noted. In the following year (1893) it was reported that 22 Canadian and 31 American vessels visited these waters and caught, respectively, about 30,000 and 25,000 seals. Up to this time no vessels owned by the Japanese had engaged in pelagic sealing, but the success of pelagic sealing in Asiatic waters had attracted the attention of the Japanese Government, and in 1893-94 an investigation of the seal question was made by scientific experts and a report on the subject, including a review of the proceedings of the Arbitration Tribunal at Paris in 1893, was prepared. As a result the policy of the Govern- ment on the seal question was changed. It appeared that the Japa- nese herd was no longer worth protecting and that the existing laws favored the foreigners at the expense of the Japanese. The old laws, therefore, were repealed and a new law was enacted, taking effect January i, 1896, which vested in the Government the control of sealing and sea-otter hunting and made it necessary for anyone wishing to engage in the business to procure an official license. By this law the Government put itself in a position to enter upon negotiations for an international agreement for protecting the seal and sea otter, if an opportunity offered, and meanwhile opened a way for encouraging, under governmental control, pelagic sealing by its subjects on equal terms with foreigners. With respect to the sea otter, the Japanese position was more difficult. The protection of the sea otter had always been a matter of even more interest to Japan than the protection of the fur seals, and this was particularly true at this time, as the Japanese seal herd had already been practically exterminated. Experience had shown, however, that to impose restrictions would merely serve to give the foreigners a clear field at the expense of the Japanese, under the prevailing system of consular iurisdiction which continued until 1899. As a choice of evils, therefore, this law put the sea otter in the same class with the seals, and anyone with a license was free to hunt thern. It is understood that the licenses during the continu- ance of consular jurisdiction were issued to anyone as a matter of course. Whether or not the law has been administered with less liberality in the case of the sea otter since 1899 does not appear. At about the same time the Japanese adopted the policy of en- couraging deep-sea fisheries, and a law for that purpose was enacted which, by means of a bount}^ granted to certain classes of fishing vessels, indirectly encouraged pelagic sealing. The provisions for "encouragement money," as it is termed, in force April i, 1898, w^ere in brief as follows: An annual subsidy of 10 yen, or ^5, per 93 ton for sailing vessels up to 200 tons, and 15 yen, or $7.50, per ton for steam vessels up to 350 tons (with no increase for higher ton- nage) was to be paid, provided that four-fifths, of the crew were Japanese and that the vessel was registered as Japanese and belonged to a Japanese subject or mercantile company of which the partners or shareholders were exclusively Japanese. It was further provided that the following vessels were not qualified to receive the subsid)^: " (i) Vessels of foreign make registered as Japanese after the coming into operation of this law, and being 5 years old at the date of register. " (2) Vessels more than 15 years old." A further bounty of 10 yen was to be paid to each of the crew according to a fixed schedule regulating the size of the crew allowed in proportion to the tonnage of the vessel. (Report of Lieutenant- Commander Marsh on Sealing in Japan, January 20, 1902, inclosed with Minister Buck's letter of same date; MSS., State Department.) In October, 1905, it was reported that this subsidy had been increased to 18 yen per ton register, with the same annual subsidy of 10 yen to each member of the crew. It is reported by the American consular agent at Hakodate, Japan, that — "The subsidy as now paid is large enough to pay all expenses for a season, the crew being on a lay; everything that is caught is profit and, unless the vessel is lost, there can be no loss to the owners." This action of the Japanese Government was taken, apparently, after the acquisition of Robben Island in 1905, and indicates that for the present at least the possession of the seal rookeries on that island has made no change in the policy of the Government on the seal question. In this connection it must also be noted tliat during the Japanese-Russian war some of the Japanese sealers raided Robben Island and killed off nearly all the seals found there. A permanent guard has now been stationed on the island by the Japanese Gov- ernment, but it will be some time before it is of any value to the Japanese, and the protection of the herd against pelagic sealing enters largely into the question of its recovery. (Report from U. S. consul-general at Yokohama, January 29, 1906.) In addition to this system of bounties the Japanese sealers had great natural advantages over the Canadian pelagic sealers in hav- ing close at hand the waters in which the seals of the Russian herd were hunted in the periods of their migrations, and also in having their home ports about one thousand miles nearer than the Cana- dians to the hunting grounds in the vicinity of the Russian seal 94 rookeries. The effect of the bounties, together with these natural advantages, was to increase rapidly the number of the Japanese fleet, and it soon became unprofitable for the Canadians to compete with them in the Japan coast hunting, although they still continued their operations in the vicinity of the Russian islands. The number of Canadian vessels engaged on the Japan coast dwindled from eleven in 1897 to a single vessel in the following year, and since then the Canadians have practically abandoned those huhting grounds, although on two occasions (1901 and 1902) eight or nine Canadian vessels again tried their luck on the Japan coast but without any particular success, getting in all an average of about 325 each, which hardly justified the expense. (See Annual Reports, Cana- dian Deputy Minister of Marine.) The following table is made up from information found in reports of United States consuls at Japan and Victoria, British Columbia, and in diplomatic correspondence and official publications and the records of the Department of Commerce and Labor. The infor- mation available is not complete and is somewhat conflicting; the figures, therefore, can not be relied on in detail, but serve to show in a general way the growth and condition of the Japanese pelagic sealing business. Japanese pelagic sealing, iSgj-igo^. Year. Number of vessels. 1893.. 1894.. 1895- 1896.. 1897.. 1898.. 1899.. 1900.. 1901.. 1902.. 1903., 1904.. 1905.. Japan coast catch. Russian islands catch. Number of vessels. Bering Sea award area catch. Total. (?) 3 6 9 14 16 12 IS "19 18 19 §30 965 2,898 3.319 4,616 4,757 6,518 7.533 7.04s 9,780 5,661 6,726 3.101 (833?) (about 60?) 3.495 1:9,749 117,906 (t) (?) (?) 2,222 349 3.319 4,6i6v 4,757 6,518 7.533 7.045 9.780 11.378 16,824 '\ ** 11,406 * It was reported that the Russian patrol had seized si.x Japanese schooners in 1901 for sealing within the 30-mile zone around the Russian islands. tSome; number not reported. X Four thousand six hundred and fifty-four taken in a raid on Robben Island. § During the Japanese-Russian war two Japanese sealing vessels were captured by Russians and another vessel was lost at sea. II Five thousand five hundred taken in a raid on the rookeries. •[One Japanese vessel took 399 on American northwest coast. ** Seventeen sea otter were taken on the Kurile Islands and 155 in the vicinity of Copper Island. The total number caught by Japanese and foreign vessels between 1890 and 1897, inclusive, on the -Japanese coast was about 228,052. (Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, p. 267.) 95 Japanese sealers in Bering Sea and foreigners sealing under the Japanese flag. The first appearance of the Japanese sealers in Bering Sea was reported in 1901 and marked an important development in the Alaskan seal question. Ever since the Canadian and American pelagic sealers were ex- cluded from Bering Sea under the modus vivendi with Great Britain in 1891-1893 and later subjected to the regulations of the Paris award in 1894, reports have been current that their operations were to be carried on in the protected area under the Japanese flag. The matter was one of considerable importance to the United States, and the cooperation of the Japanese Government was asked in enforcing the observance of the award regulations. In November, 1893, the Japanese Government responded that measures would be taken to prevent foreign vessels using the flag of Japan to evade the seal-fisheries regulations, but they declined to require bona fide Japanese vessels to observe the regulations unless they should be extended to include the Japanese seal fisheries. (Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I, p. 135.) The regulations were not extended to Asiatic waters for reasons which have been reviewed elsewhere, but the instructions desired were issued by the Japanese Government to the Japanese consuls at San Francisco, Vancouver, and other foreign ports, calling attention to the reported plan of securing a Japanese registry for sealing vessels for purposes of deception, and they were directed "to act in the matter with strict caution, so that no certifi- cates shall be granted to parties carrying on such dishonorable business." {Id., p. 137.) The measures taken by Japan at that time and since to prevent the improper use of the Japanese flag for pelagic sealing in the award area have not prevented Americans and Canadians from participating in the Japanese sealing industry, but the extent of their participation was not a matter of any particular consequence to this Government prior to 1901, when sealers under the Japanese flag first appeared in the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands. During the years between 1893 and 1897 there was a group of sealing vessels varying from seven to three in number, of Canadian or American ownership, sailing from Japanese ports and classed as "vessels domiciled in Japan," but in each case the vessels carried the flag of the country of ownership and were employed only on the Japan coast. In 1897 bui three of these were left — one Canadian and two American. The Canadian vessel was lost at sea during that season and the two American vessels were debarred l)y the act of Congress of December 29, 1897, above referred to, from sealing under the American flag north of the 35tti degree of latitude. Just 96 what ultimately became of them and the other four does not appear, and they may have continued in the business under Japanese owner- ship and different names. The-situation as disclosed by the investigations made in 1901 and thereafter is in brief as follows: On October 24, 1901, it was reported by the United States con- sul at Victoria, British Columbia, that two vessels, the JosepJdne and the Henry Dennis, formerly of American register, were taking seals in Bering Sea under the Japanese flag and that former residents of the United States were large owners of Japanese sealing vessels. With respect to the Josephine, however, he further reported on hear- say information that she had been sold for debt in Hakodate in 1894 and purchased by some Japanese, and it appeared later (report of October 31, 1901) that she was one of the six Japanese vessels seized by the Russian cruiser Yakut for sealing within the proscribed lim- its around the Russian rookeries. Later information about the Henry Dennis showed that she was at that time one of the Japanese sealing fleet under a Japanese name, but that she was American owned was not shown. (Report of Lieutenant-Commander Marsh, naval attache at Tokyo, January 20, 1902, inclosed with letter of Minister Buck of same date.) It proved to be true that five vessels of the Japanese sealing fleet had engaged in pelagic sealing in the vicinity of the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1901, and not being subject to the Paris award regulations had felt free to disregard them. It further appeared that some Americans and Canadians were employed on these ves- sels as navigators and hunters. Subsequent inquiry indicated that on a number of Japanese vessels the nominal captain, who acted as captain in port, was Japanese, as required by Japanese law, but the actual captain at sea was the navigator, who was either a Canadian or American, and on vessels so equipped white hunters were gener- ally shipped. (Lieutenant-Commander Marsh's report, .$■////■«.) On this subject the United States consul at Victoria, British Columbia, reported March 5, 1906: "There are several (not over twenty) Victorians now employed as hunters and 'navigators' (really captains) on Japanese sealing schooners." With respect to American ownership it was reported that two Americans were the principal owners of the Japanese sealing fleet. Their names were given as McLaughlin and King — the former a naturalized Japanese subject residing. at Yokohama, and the latter an American citizen residing at Hakodate, having a Japanese wife in whose name two schooners owned by him were registered. (Re- port of U. S. consul at Victoria, B. C., October 24, 1901.) On 97 further investigation it was reported that these two men, whose full names were given as J. M. Laffin and E. J. King, the latter being in a way the agent of the former, were interested on their own account in three vessels, the Sei-toku, Sei-fu, and To-ro Man/, which vessels were not used in the award area. Their interest in the sealing busi- ness generally was as commission merchants or purchasers of the catch, and in that way, and by advancing money to the sealers for their outfit and supplies, they practically controlled the whole seal- ing business. (Report of Lieutenant-Commander Marsh, July i6, 1902.) While these investigations were in progress the several questions involved were brought to the attention of the Japanese Government. On November 21, 1901, the United States minister at Tokyo, Mr. Buck, was instructed by the State Department to — "strongly urge upon the Japanese Government its friendly action in requiring Japanese subjects to observe the same regulations as imposed by the Paris award, which operate to restrain American citizens and the subjects of Great Britain, and to end, if possible, the practice of American citizens sealing under cover of the Japa- nese flag." In compliance with these instructions the situation as reported was called by him to the attention of tlie Japanese Government on December 26, 1901. No response was made. On April 14, 1902, Mr. Buck again wrote to the Japanese Government and urged prompt action in view of the near approach of the sealing season. At the same time he pointed out that Japanese sealing operations in the last season on the eastern side of Bering Sea were so insignificant as to have brought little profit — probably a loss — so that the adoption of the proposed restrictions would involve little if any loss to Japanese subjects. (Letter of April 14, 1902, Mr. Buck to Mr. Hay.) On June 7, 1902, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote in answer, stating that considerable time had necessarily been con- sumed in making an investigation through the Department of Agri- culture and Commerce, to which the matter had been referred. He stated further that this investigation had not disclosed among the vessels licensed by the Imperial Government to engage in sealing and otter hunting the existence — "of any vessel which could reasonably be regarded as having nomi- nally been transferred to Japanese register while actually remaining under the command of the United States citizens." It was further stated that great caution has been and will be e.xer- cised to prevent the issuing of licenses tf) American sealing vi'ssels nominally transferred to Japanese register but actually in ihc cmiiloy K s 7 98 of and under the command of United States citizens. In this cor- respondence no reference is made to the use of the Japanese flag by Canadians. In reply to the request on the part of the United States that the Imperial Government take appropriate steps so that Japanese sub- jects, in taking seals, may be required to observe the same regula- tions, imposed by the Paris award, the Minister for Foreign Affairs called attention to the well-known attitude of his Government on the subject and stated that — "From the correspondence which has passed between your lega- tion and this Department and between His Imperial Majesty's legation in Washington and the Department of State in 1893 and 1894, as well as from the declarations made by the Japanese dele- gates in the International Fur Seal Conference of 1897 in which the United States, Russia, and Japan participated, it will be seen that Japan has always expressed her readiness, under certain conditions, to become a party to an international agreement or regulations for the protection of the fur seals. The conditions which Japan deems essential for the protection of her legitimate interests are already known to 3'^our excellency's Government. An international agree- ment on the basis of the mutual interests involved having unfortu- nately not been arrived at, the Imperial Government find themselves unable, in the absence of some reciprocal arrangement, to take leg- islative measures to make the regulations imposed by the Paris award of 1893 operative upon Japanese subjects and vessels. Nev- ertheless, I am happy to assure your excellency that the Imperial Government will be prepared to consider favorably any scheme of international character which will afford effectual protection to fur- seal life in Bering Sea and the adjacent waters. " (Inclosure in letter of June 10, 1902, Mr. Buck to Mr. Hay.) THE RUSSIAN SEALING INDUSTRY. Russian seal rookeries. The principal rookeries of the Russian herd are found on the Com- mander Islands, consisting of Bering and Copper islands, and on Robben Island, which is now a Japanese possession. In 187 1 the Russian Government leased the trading and sealing rights on these islands to the firm of Hutchinson. Kohl, Philippeus & Co. for a period of twenty years on practically the same condi- tions upon which the Alaskan Commercial Company leased the Pribilof Islands from the United States. The majority of the mem- bers of this firm were also members of a San Francisco firm which had already acquired extensive property and trading rights in Alaska. In order to obtain a lease from the Russian authorities it was neces- sary to have at least one member of the firm Russian, and Mr. Phil- ippeus, a Russian, was given a large interest in the firm for the use 99 of his name. The Russian law was thus complied with and the firm was nominally Russian, but practically American, and their vessels were American property, and during the twenty-year period of its lease this firm, with headquarters in San Francisco, managed the seal fisheries on the Russian islands. Upon the expiration of this lease in February, 1891, a new lease was awarded to a Russian company, whose name officially rendered in English was "The Russian Sealskin Company." This new lease by its terms was to expire on February 19. 1901. (Fur Seal Inves- tigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, pp. 15-190.) In February, 1901, a new lease was made, the terms of which have not been reported. The United States consul at St. Petersburg in December, 1901, reported that the " farming out" of the seal hunting on these islands was about to take place, and in this connection he inclosed a clip- ping from the London Daily Mail (December, 1901) from which the following is quoted: " It is doubtful, however, whether the farming out of this Crown property will bring in the price it used to, since the enormous destruction of the last ten years has terribly decreased the catch. "The following figures issued by the governor of East Siberia are significant : " In 1890 the number caught on the Commander Islands was 54,591; in 1892 only 30,000 were caught; in 1894 only 25,000; in 1898 only 2,925; and in 1899 only 1,000. "These figures show that the time is approaching when this magnificently furred animal will be almost extinct in this region." It does not appear on what authority these figures are based and they can not be considered as reliable in view of the fact that at tlie auction sales of seal skins in London in 1898 and 1899 over 9,000 skins were sold in each year as skins taken from tlie Russian islands. The size of the Commander Islands herd at present or in the past can not be accurately given. It is reported that the flatness of the islands makes it practically impossible to count the seals on the rook- eries, and no reliable census has been taken. The number has been roughly arrived at, however, by assuming tliat its size each year bears approximately the same relation to the number killed on the islands annually as the Pribilof Islands herd bears to the number killed there. On this basis the herd at its best, when 50,000 skins were taken annually, was approximately half the size of the Pribi- lof Islands herd when 100,000 skins were annually taken there. There are certain fliff(M-ences in conditions, however, which make any such comparison of doubtful value. This lierd is practically unprotected against pelagic sealers, for there is no close season and lOO no prohibition against the use of firearms, as in the Paris award area, and the feeding grounds for this herd are beyond the area now protected by the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1893. (Fur Seal Investigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, pp. 112, 194, 221, 227, 231.) The following table shows the number of fur-seal skins shipped from the Commander Islands and Robben Island from 1871 to 1897, inclusive: Year. 1871. 1872. 1873- 1874. 1875- 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. 1880. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897- Total , 'Bering Island. Copper Island. 3,658 14,964 14,661 14,392 13,044 13,406 15,480 12,712 20,440 10,358 15,074 7,192 11,392 8,130 20,070 13,572 25,166 15,160 30.014 16,078 23,237 18,512 22,002 13,480 13,170 21,384 28,060 20,966 20,771 24.555 30,036 21,298 25.049 26,456 20 , go6 23,783 29,076 19,996 32.328 17,884 18,065 16,590 14,654 13,992 17,294 13,165 13,122 9,526 6.893 7,301 7. 171 5,026 6,309 397,958 499,062 Robben Island. 2,694 2,414 3.127 1,528 2,949 3,140 4,002 3,330 4.207 4,106 2,049 3,819 1,838 1,456 540 1.532 1,000 1,300 269 214 45,514 Total. 3,658 29.356 30.399 31,300 36,279 26,960 21,533 31.340 42,740 48,5-04 43.522 44,620 28,699 53.263 43.575 54.. 591 46.347 47.362 52.859 53.780 36,905 31,244 32,818 27,287 17,719 14,741 ",549 942 , 534 Note. — To this table should be added 2,568 skins taken from vessels seized within Russian terri- torial waters in 1891 and 1892. The total number of skins, therefore, shipped from the Russian seal islands from 1871 to 1897, inclusive, is 945,102. The figures for 1897 are taken from Stejneger's Re- port, Treasury Department publication, 1897. As appears from the above statement the lessees refrained from taking any skins on Robben Island during the years 1871, 1872, 1886 to 1889, inclusive, and 1S92. This was largely due to the fact that at intervals the rookeries on this island had been extensively raided, and in order to save the herd it was necessary to altogether suspend the killing on land. The number of seals reported to have been killed illegally by the raiders on Robben Island between 1878 and 1895 amounts to at least 53,000 seals of both sexes. These figures are entirely apart from the number of seals taken by pelagic sealing. (Fur Seal In- vestigations, 1896-97, pt. 4, pp. 127, 172.) lOI The number of skins sold in London annually since 1897 as Cop- per Island skins are reported in the sales reports of Lampson & Co., through whom all sales were made, as follows: 189S 9,487 1899 9, 7S6 1900 13.237 1901 II, 298 1902 7, 733 1903 7. 720 1904 8,315 1905 9, 000 Pelagic catch. Russian subjects are prohibited by law from engaging in pelagic sealing. Prior to 1891 Canadian and American vessels had visited and raided the Russian seal islands from time to time, but no pelagic sealing had regularly been done in those waters up to that time. In 1891, however, the eastern part of Bering Sea was closed to the American and Canadian sealers by the jnodus vivendi between the United States and Great Britain, and in that year several and in the following years a large number of the pelagic-sealing fleet visited the Asiatic side of the Bering Sea and engaged in pelagic sealing there. In 1895 the Japanese pelagic sealers first appeared in those waters. In consequence of this invasion by the pelagic sealers an agree- ment was entered into in May, 1893, between the Russian and Brit- ish Governments prohibiting seal killing — " within a zone of 10 marine miles on all the Russian coast of Ber- ing Sea and the North Pacific Ocean, as well as within a zone of 30 marine miles around the Komandorsky Islands and Tulenew (Rob- ben) Island. " The agreement also limited to 30,000 the number of seals which might be killed annually on the Russian islands. A similar agree- ment was entered into the following year between the United States and Russia. These agreements were extended from time to time, the agreement with the United States being finally superseded by the act of Congress approved December 29, 1897, prohibiting pelagic sealing in those waters and the agreement with Great Britain being still in force. The catch in those waters from 1891 to 1897, inclusive, is stated as follows in the Fur Seal Investigations, part 4. page 202 (see also statistical tables prepared by the Treasury Department in 1897): I02 Russian catch. i8gi .. 1892 .. 1893 .. 1894 .. 189s .. i8q6 .. 1897 .. 1898* . 1899* . 1900* . 1901* . 1902* 1903* . 1904*. 1905* . Total. Year. Seals taken by vessels sailing from — United States. 1,816 4.450 604 1,786 766 272 Canada. 6,616 17,222 12,052 7,688 6,281 1,306 1,382 50 699 208 3.397 1.340 1,910 1,790 1.972 Japan. Japan (foreign flag). 1,087 1,506 833 3.495 + 9.749 5:7,906 650 Total. 8,432 21,672 12,656 9.474 8.134 3,084 2,865 50 699 208 3.397 1,340 5.405 11,539 9. 878 98,833 * Taken from consular reports and official returns from British Government. t Four thousand si.x hundred and fifty-four of these were taken in a raid on Robben Island. X Five thousand five hundred of these were taken in a raid on Copper Island. SEALING INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN SEAS. The sealing interests in South American waters and among the islands in the Southern Seas have an important bearing on the Alaskan fur-seal question and must necessarily be considered in connection with any permanent settlement of that question. The relation of these interests to that question is twofold. In the first place the South American countries which have within their jurisdiction breeding grounds for the fur seal stand in relatively the same position with reference to the sealing question generally that Russia occupies. Their seals in recent years have been attacked in the same manner as the Russian seals by the sealing vessels of the Victoria Commercial Company, which now sends two or three ves- sels annually to engage in pelagic sealing in southern waters. Con- siderable success has attended this new departure by the sealers, thereby contributing materially to the prosperity of the sealing company. In 1903 a catch of 1,794 seals at Cape Horn enabled the sealing company to pay an otherwise unearned dividend which was the first and with one exception the only dividend ever declared by that company. In the second place, the ci'tizens of the South American countries are as much at liberty as the Japanese to engage in pelagic sealing in Bering Sea and such sealing, if carried on there, would not be subject to the restrictions of the Paris award regulations, which I03 apply only to the citizens and subjects respectively of the United States and Great Britain. Moreover, the cooperation of the South American countries is necessary to prevent the use of their flags as a cover for sealing operations in Bering Sea by the citizens or subjects of other countries. Historical reviezv. The subject of the fur seals and sealing in the Southern Seas up to the year 1892 is presented in affidavits and reports in the records of the Fur Seal Arbitration Proceedings at Paris, from which the fol- lowing statement, showing briefly the situation, has been prepared: At the beginning of the last century fur seals existed in great numbers in southern waters. The principal rookeries were located on small islands lying near the southern coasts of South America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and in the Antarctic Seas. Seal hunting in those localities was actively engaged in as early as 1780, and the method pursued was to raid the breeding grounds and kill male and female seals indiscriminately. This- process speedily exhausted the different rookeries, and by the year 1830 it was re- ported that all the known sealing grounds were so depleted that new grounds must be discovered. The total number killed during this period is not known, but it is stated that actual records show a total of at least 16,000,000 skins. From that time on the only con- stant sources of supply of any importance were the rookeries on the Falkland Islands (until 1870), Lobos Island, and in the neighbor- hood of the Cape of Good Hope, all of which had been taken under governmental protection to some extent. The Australian grounds supplied a small number with some regularity, and casual hunters occasionally made a killing on some of the old rookeries where a remnant of the herd was left, and in later years pelagic sealing has been carried on in the vicinity of Cape Horn. The Governments which have established sealing regulations are Uruguay, Argentine Republic, Chile, and the British colonies of- Falkland Islands, Cape of Good Hope, Victoria, New Zealand, and Tasmania. The rookeries under the jurisdiction of Chile and the Argentine Republic were not considered of any commercial impor- tance in 1892. (Fur Seal Arbitration, vol. 2, p. 218; Apj)., p. 393; vol. 3, pp. 540, 542; vol. 6, pp. 209-216, 221, 267, 290; vol. 8, p. 902.) Pj-esent conditions. In November, 1902, the United States consul at V^ictoria, British Columbia, reported that the Victoria Sealing Company, owning the entire Canadian sealing fleet with the exception of three vessels, I04 was sending a number of schooners to hunt in southern waters dur- ing the following season. He says: " For this purpose they are selecting their best schooners and most trusted masters. Members of the Victoria Company now own some of the vessels and are interested in others of those sailing from Halifax for sealing in the South Atlantic. The sealing grounds there comprise the coast of Chile, around Cape Horn, and the coast of the Argentine Republic. The principal headquarters of the Vic- toria sealers there will be at Port Stanley, in the Falkland Islands, and at Montevideo." On January 28, 1903, he further reported that there were ten or twelve other small schooners, carrying flags of different nationali- ties, engaged in pelagic sealing in that vicinity, and that the Cana- dian schooners had been very successful in hunting off the rookeries near Sandy Point, Chile, and the east coast of the Argentine Re- public. From this it would appear that the seal herds located there had thrived under the protection extended by these Governments to the rookeries under their control. What the effect of the pelagic sealing has been upon them has not yet been reported. Lobos Island, situated at the mouth of La Plata and owned by Uruguay, has yielded regularly an average of about 14,000 skins annually for the past twenty years until 1903, when the Canadian pelagic sealers began an attack on the herd. Since then the num- ber taken on the island has been, in round numbers, about 11,000 in 1903, 8,000 in 1904, and 2,000 in 1905. It is reported by the Canadian deputy minister of marine and fisheries that in 1904 the Canadian sealing schooner Agnes G. Dojiahoe had been seized at Montevideo by the authorities of the Uruguayan Government for illegal sealing. (See also Foreign Relations, 1905, pp. 912-918.) The seizure of a Chilean vessel there has been recently reported in the public press. The number of seals taken by Canadian sealers in southern waters does not appear further than that in 1902 two vessels from 'Victoria, the E. B. Marvin and the Florence M. Smith, took, respec- tively, 2,474 and 3,321 skins, or 5,795 in all; the following year, 1903, the E. B. Marvin took 1,794 skins and in 1904 the same vessel secured 2,349 skins there. It has further been reported in the pub- lic press (Colonist, Victoria, March 8, 1906) that "the schooner Enterprise was recently destroyed by fire at Rio do Sul," with her catch on board, and that the schooner Beatrice L. Corkum, of Victoria, had reported a good catch there. It was subsequently reported by the United States consul at Vic- toria, British Columbia (May 8, 1906), that the catches by Cana- dian-owned vessels in South American waters during the season of 1905 were as follows: I05 Skins. Markland i, 025 E. B. Marvin i, iSo Edith R. Balcom 58S Baden Powell 600 Beatrice L. Corkum i, 27S The last three of these schooners sailed from Halifax, Nova Scotia. A table marked "E" is printed in the appendix at page 115, which shows the number of fur-seal skins from all sources sold annually at the London sales since 187 1, and the localities from which they were taken. In March, 1906, the Department of State requested a report from the United States consular representatives at the several South American countries having local sealing interests, giving information on the following points: "(i) The number of fur seals' annually frequenting, in recent years, the seal rookeries under the control of the respective govern- ments and the location of seal rookeries. " (2) The local laws for the protection of fur seals and regulating the killing of seals on land and at sea. "(3) If the privilege of killing on land is leased by the govern- ment, the terms of such lease and the income, if any, derived by the lessee and by the government. "(4) The number of seals from the respective herds killed annu- ally on land and at sea under governmental regulations or otherwise. " (5) The nationality of pelagic sealers, if any, preying upon such herd and the time and places of hunting. "(6) The local commercial value of the sealing business and the number of persons locally employed. "(7) The market to which the skins are shipped." In answer to this request reports have been made by the United States consuls at Montevideo and at Stanley, Falkland Islands, which reports are printed in the appendix and marked "F" and "G," at pages 116 and x 17. APPENDIX. 107 APPENDIX. 'A." Complete list of British Columbia sealing vessels, i8q8. No. Name. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 , 9 lO II 12 13 1 14 j 15 i6 17 i8 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Ada Ainoko Allie I. .\lger Amateur .\nnie E. Paint Arietis Aurora Beatrice Borealis C. D. Rand C. G. Cox* Carrie C. W City of San Diego Diana Director Hatzic* Dora Sievvard Doris E. B. Marvin Enterprise * Favorite Fawn Fisher Maid F. M. Smith Geneva Ida Etta Kate Kilmeny Libbie Mary Ellen Mary Taylor Mascot Mermaid Minnie Mountain Chief... Ocean Belle Oscar and Hattie.. Otto Ocean Rover* Pachewallis Penelope Pioneer Ton- nage. Age. 97 18 76 7 79 12 19 6 82 13 86 II 43 10 66 7 48 7 67 7 82 7 92 10 51 17 54 9 87 8 1 76 16 98 7 64 6 123 14 74 6 80 30 63 6 22 5 99 10 107 14 73 4 58 36 18 S 93 9 69 35 43 23 1 ''° 23 1 85 35 50 y 27 ii , 83 IS 8s 14 86 9 63 2 22 4 87 15 70 II Present value of vessel, in- cluding an- chors, chains, spars, and rigging. Present value cff equipment, additional, required for Bering Sea, including sails. $11,446.00 8,968.00 9,322.00 2,242.00 9,676.00 10,148.00 5,074.00 7,788.00 5,664.00 7 , 906 . 00 9 , 8 1 1 . 40 10,856.00 6,018.00 6,372.00 10,266.00 10,795.96 11,564.00 7i552-oo 14,514.00 11,644-71 9,440.00 7.434-0O 2,596.00 11,682.00 12,626.00 8,614.00 6,844.00 2, 124.00 10,974.00 8,142.00 5,074.00 4,720.00 10,030.00 5,900.00 3 , I 86 . 00 9,794.00 10,030.00 10, 148.00 7,107.01 2 , 596 . 00 10, 266. < 8.i"6o...,, $4,559-00 3>572.oo 3>7i3-oo 893.00 3,854.00 4,042.00 2,021.00 3,102.00 2,^56.00 3,149.00 3.951-88 4,324.00 2,397.00 2,538.00 4 , 089 . 00 3,586.8s 4 , 606 . 00 3 , 008 . 00 5,781.00 3,109.68 3,760.00 2,961.00 1,034.00 4,653.00 5,029.00 3,431.00 2,726.00 846.00 4,371.00 3,243.00 2,021.00 I, 880. CO 3,995.00 2,350.00 I , 269 . 00 3,901 .00 3,995. 935 -60 Present value of equipment, additional, required for Bering Sea, including sails. $2,633.30 1,974.00 1,034.00 3,290.00 4,982.00 4,653.00 2,256.00 3,149.00 3,ig6.oo 3,948.00 3,T02.00 4,371.00 174.445-25 Total value of vessel and equipment. $13,083.82 6,930.00 3,630.00 11,550.00 17,490.00 16,335.00 7,920.00 11,055.00 11,220.00 13,860.00 io,8go.oo 15.345-00 620,380.85 The values of all the vessels in the above list, excepting the five marked with an asterisk, thus *, viz, C. G. Cox, Hatzic, Etitei-prise, Ocean Kover, and Sadie Turpel, are fixed and given on the basis of $165 per ton as the average value of pelagic sealers and equipment without provisions or sea stores. The division between the value of the vessel per se and the equipment is made by Captain Cox. The above sum of $620,380.85 is submitted as the present actual value of the sealing fleet and equipments, but, as stated at the meeting of the Commissioners, a further sum is claimed on behalf of the sealers, in respect of their being compulsorily deprived of continuing their industry. MEMORANDUM OF REFERENCES. The estimate of the value of the pelagic fleet of the United States Census Bulle- tin No. 123 (1891) places the value per ton, including outfit, at $160.54. See also British estimate of the value of the fleet, supposed to be made up from the report of the British Commissioner, Gleadowe, sent to British Columbia in 1892, to be found in United States version Bering Sea Papers, volume 8, pages 846-863. See also vol. 8, id., p. 919. 1 1 1 No. 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 lo II 12 13 14 15 i6 17 i8 IQ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 "B." [Captain Thayer's report.] British Columbia sealing fleet of i8gS. Name. Ada Ainoko Allie I. Alger Arietis Beatrice Carrie C. W C. D. Rand City of San Diego.. Diana Director Dora Sieward.. D oris Enterprise Favorite Geneva Hatzic IdaEtta Libbie Mary Ellen.... Mary Taylor.. Mermaid Minnie Ocean Belle.... Ocean Rover.. Otto Penelope Saucy Lass. Teresa Umbrina — Victoria Viva Walter L. Rich.. Zilla May Total.. Tonnage. Age. Value. Appro.\imate value on basis of $100 per ton for new, with. per cent yearly depreciation. ^- 18 |i,5oo J.:, 910. 00 75 7 4.500 4,875.00 7 t 12 3.500 3,555-00 S') II 3.500 4,085.00 66 II 3,000 3,135-00 92 10 4,000 4,600.00 67 7 4,000 4,355-oo SI 17 1,500 1,637-50 54 9 3.000 2,970.00 3; 8 5,000 5,220.00 LiS 7 6,000 6,370.00 64 6 4,000 4,480.00 74 6 5,000 5, 180.00 80 30 3,000 2,000.00 107 14 3.500 4,280.00 76 16 2,500 2,660.00 73 4 5,000 5 , 840 . 00 93 9 5,000 5,115-00 69 35 1,500 1,725.00 43 23 2,000 1,075.00 83 35 3.500 2,150.00 30 9 2,500 2,750.00 87 15 4,000 3,262.50 1 ^3 2 6,000 5,670.00 86 9 4,000 4,730.00 82 13 3.500 3,075.00 42 6 3.000 2,940.00 70 13 2,000 2,625.00 "3 10 ,3,000 3,650.00 68 6 5,000 4,760.00 92 13 2,500 3,910.00 84 21 2,000 2,IOO.OO 66 1 2 5,500 5,940.00 2,519 418 119,500 125,650.00 "Hoye..— Pioneer sailed with the fleet, but had not returned at last report. Average age of 33 vessels years... 12 to 23 Average price per ton per valuation $47-44 Average price per ton per approximation $49- ^^ Vessels. Num- ber. Tons. Value. Vessels sealing in 1898 Vessels not sealing in i8g8.. 16 only of above \'essel not reported 33 20 Total . 54 a,S'9 $119,500 1. 138 45,300 73 3.730 164,80} Appro.ximale value on basis of $100 per ton for new, with 5 per cent depreciation. $125,650 57. ".vt 183,703 I 12 Vessels that had been sealing previous to i8g8, but ttot out that season. No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID II 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 Name. Amateur Annie E. Paint Aurora Borealis Carlotta G. Co.\ E. B. Marvin Fawn Fisher Maid Florence M. Smith. Kate Kilmeny Mascot Mountain Chief Oscar and Hattie... Pachewallis Sadie Turpel South Bend Triumph Venture Vera Total. Appro.ximate value on basis Tonnage. Age. Value. of $100 per ton for new, with 5 per cent yearly depreciation. 19 32 6 $1,330.00 3,485-00 13 $3,000 43 10 2,000 2,150.00 50 7 2,500 3,250.00 82 n S.ooo 5,330.00 123 14 5,000 4,920.00 63 5 5 3,500 4,410.00 1,750.00 99 10 5,000 4,950,00 S8 36 1,000 1,450.00 18 5 800 1,350.00 40 23 740 I , 000 . 00 27 17 877-50 * 86 14 3,000 3,440.00 4 6 I , 760 . 00 4,270.00 61 3,000 22 17 750 715.00 106 II 4,500 5,035-00 48 10 > 2,500 2 , 400 . 00 67 II 3,000 3,182.50 1,138 232 45,300 57,055.0c Average age of 20 vessels years... iix% V'aluation per ton of 16 vessels, 1,138 — 90=1,048 tons $43-23 Estimated valuation per ton of 20 vessels, 1,138 tons 51-36 The Fawn and Oscar and Hattie have had sealing accommodations removed and have been fitted with berths, evidently for Klondike passengers. ESTIMATE OF SEALING OUTFIT FOR FLEET OF 1 898 — 33 VESSELS. Ballast for 33 vessels, at $50 each $1, 650 Chronometers for 33 vessels, at $100 each 3, 300 Barometers, marine glasses, charts, etc., at $50 each i, 650 E.xtra galley for 30 vessels with Indian hunters i, 500 Medicine chests, at $20 each 660 Signal guns, at f6o each i, gSo Knives and tools, at $25 each 825 Flooring, ballast, and building extra accommodations, including salt room, etc., 33 at $250 each 8, 250 Tankage, extra average 2,000 gallons per vessel (one-half wood at 5 cents, 33,000 gallons ; one-half iron at 10 cents, 33,000 gallons)... 4,950 Sundry equipments of galley and cabin, spears, gaffs, and small gear, etc., 33 vessels at ^130 each 4,950 Boat outfits: $29,715 Whole number of boats at sea 84 One on each vessel valued with hull 33 Leaving for sealing outfit 51 51 boats, with masts and sails, oars, rowlocks, water breakers, etc., at $110 each 5.610 Ammunition boxes for S4 boats and 324 canoes 615 Compasses and fog horns for 84 boats and 324 canoes 2,030 Guns (2 for each boat, i for each canoe, and 50 spare), 544 at I50... 27, 200 Brass shells (100 each gun), 54,400 at 5 cents 2, 720 3S, 195 Above outfit for 33 vessels of total gross tonnage of 2,519 tons 67,910 Average cost of outfit per ton 26.95 i^o Catiadian sealing fleet, i8g8-igo_5. No. Name. 7 8 9 lO II 12 13 14 15 i6 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Vessels 0/ Victoria Sealing Comfiany. Ainoko AUie I. .-Mger Annie E. Paint Arietis Aurora Beatrice Borealis Casca C. D. Rand* C. G. Cox Carrie C. W City of San Diego Diana Director Dora Sievverd E. B. Marvin Favorite Fawn t Florence M. Smith Geneva Ida Etta HatzicJ Libbie Mary Taylor Mermaid § Ocean Belle Ocean Rover Oscar and Hattie Otto Penelope* Sadie Turple Saucy Lass Teresa Triumph* Vera Victoria Viva Walter L. Rich Zilla May Ada Doris Mary Ellen Mascot Venture Tonnage. Vessels 0/ outsitie ownership. Enterprise Jessie Umbrina Year built. 76 79 82 36 43 66 48 67 67 82 92 51 54 87 98 123 80 63 99 107 73 76 93 43 85 83 63 85 86 87 61 42 70 106 67 68 93 84 66 97 64 69 40 48 74 60 1887 1886 1885 1887 1887 i8qi 1891? 1891? 1888 1881 1890 i8go? 1891 1894 i868 1892? 1888? 1884 1884 Sealing voyages, 1898-1905. 1894 1875 1853 1883 1896 1884? 1889 1882 1892? 1892 1883 1887 1887? 1892 1885 1877 1896 1880 189s 1863 1875? 1888? 1892 1887 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X > X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X .\ I I 6 7 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 8 5 S 2 - S 6" 7 6 8 5 2 5 4 3 7 7 5 4 7 5 6 8 4 3 8 I I I ♦ Lost, 1904. + Lost, 1905. % Lost, 1Q03. SSold. V S- 114 "D." Seal island and pelagic catch and average price per skin, with revenue to Governvienf from tax on seal skins, from i8yo to igo^, inclusive. Vear. 1870 . 1871 , 1872 , 1873. 102, g6o 108, 8ig 109,177 1874 j 110,585 1875 j 106,460 Pribilof Island catch. Skins. 1876 . 1877. 1878 . 1879- 1880 . 1881 . 1882 . 1883. 1884 . 1885. 1886 . 1887 . 1888 . 1889 . 1890 . 1891 . 1892 . 1893 . 1894 . 1895 . 1896 . 1897. 1898 . 1899 . 1900 . 1901 . 1902 . 1903 . 1904 1905 , 94.657 84,310 109,323 no, 411' 105,718 105,063 99,812 79.509 105,434 105,024 104,521 los , 760 103,304 102,617 28,059 12,040 7. 511 7.396 16,270 14,846 30,654 ig,20o §18,032 '117,189 22,114 23,291 22,346 20,126 11,726 113,853 Average price.* Iio.so 11.20 13.00 13.10 12.75 8.75 9-75 9.80 21.20 22.25 19-75 13.60 20.20 12-75 14.20 17.10 14.00 19-50 17.00 36-50 30.00 30.00 27.00 20.50 20.25 17.00 15-50 16.00 26.00 32.00 34.00 32-50 29.50 37.00 37.00 Pelagic catch. Skins.t 8,686 16,911 5,336 5,229 5,873 5,033 5,515 5,210 5,544 8,557 8,718 10,382 15,551 16,557 16,971 23,040 28,494 30,628 26,189 29,858 40,814 59,568 46 , 642 30,812 61,838 56,291 43,917 24,321 28,142 34,645 35,315 18,895 11,472 12,791 12,922 12,205 Average price.* $2.40 2.40 8.50 9.00 5-25 13.00 14.00 7.80 5.10 6.30 6.75 6.50 7.00 7.70 7.80 9-75 15-25 15-75 17.00 12.50 8-75 10.25 S.oo 6.50 6.50 10.25 16.00 15-25 19-25 18.50 19.25 27-35 Revenue to Govern- ment de- rived. $ $101,080,00 322,863.38 307,181.12 327,081.25 317,494-75 317,584.00 291,155.50 253,255-75 317,447-50 317,400.25 317,594-50 316,885.75 317,295.25 251,875.00 317,400.2s 317,489.50 317,452-75 317,500.00 317,500.00 317,500.00 214,673.88 46,749-23 23,972.60 96,159.82 163,916.97 153,375-00 306,750.00 212,332.35 184,377.20 224,476.47 229,755-75 231,821.20 286,133.40 197,260.70 134,233-80 146,912.80 *The average prices obtained in London for skins are taken from Report of Hearings before Ways and Means Committee, March 9 and 10, 1904. t Figures of pelagic catch are taken from vol. i. Report of Fur Seal Investigations, page 222, with the exception of those for the years 1898 to 1905, both inclusive, which are taken from the official British returns. They do not agree with the report of the London Trade Sales, which shows a larger number of skins. J Statement of revenue derived taken from official records in Treasury Department. § The skins taken this year were not given in agent's report. The number here given is the com- pany's quota actually shipped. The number killed in 1899 was taken from a letter from the Department of Commerce and Labor to the State Department, dated January 14, 1905. •;The number given is e-xclusive of the fall killing for 1905, which can not be ascertained until iqo6. The foregoing table is Exhibit A, inclosed in the letter of January 7, 1906, from the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to the Secretary of State. 115 "E." Statement shoudng number of skins sold annually by Lampson ^ Co. at the London sales, and the localities from which they 7vere taken. [Prepared from the sales lists of Lampson & Co., March 14, 1906.] Year. 1871. 1872 ; 1873- 1S74. 1S75. 1876. 1877., 1878. 1879. 1880. 1S81. 1882.. X883., 1884., 1885.. 1886.. 1887.. 1888., i88g.. 1890.. 1891.. 1892.. 1893.. i894-- 1895.. 1896.. 1897.. 1898.. 1899.. 1900.. 1901.. 1902.. 1903.. 1904.. 1905 •• Alaska. Skins. 104,899 96,283 103.724 99.150 99,634 90,276 75,410 99,911 100,036 100,161 99,921 100,100 75.914 99.994 99,874 99.947 99.949 100,037 100,031 25.152 13.494 7,554 7.500 16,030 15,002 30,004 20,762 18,032 16,804 21,924 22,672 22,306 19.378 13,128 14,368 Copper Island. Skins. 30.349 34.479 33,198 25,380 18,686 28,21s 38,900 45,209 39.3" 36,480 26,675 48.929 41,750 54,584 46,296 47,411 52,76s 90,427 31,380 32,832 27,298 17,721 14,415 13,727 9,487 9,786 13.237 11,298 7.733 7,720 8,31s 9,000 Xorthwest coast. Ski}. Lobos Island. Cape Horn. ^C^eo^^^ Skins. 1,72s 40 S.071 2,224 3,104 772 2,698 14,609 13,501 15,887 22,886 8,704 19,357 10,148 49,079 39.419 30,285 39.884 47.467 63.733 72,973 106,368 135,686 102 , 460 71.033 40,280 31,407 42,857 44.379 31.476 26,480 26,511 30,207 25.319 Skins. Skins. n.353 13.066 12,301 12,295 14,86s 13,569 13,200 12,422 14,580 10,862 15.049 14,831 17,774 13,205 14,241 13,634 12, 202 13.624 12,145 12,017 19,172 15,926 14,422 14,918 15,116 12,831 16,376 10,994 8,349 2,025 2,171 2,867 4,662 3,812 3,627 4.389 6,386 2,131 62 1,888 2,510 3.451 4,204 6,908 8,765 11.329 16,063 28,785 22.495 11,074 Falkland Islands. 2,306 3,304 1,969 1,141 1,528 1.059 2,767 312 136 651 1,131 1,538 1,282 4,827 7,803 2,654 Skins. 456 732 130 Note. — The comparative value of the skins from thchc several sources is stated to be, first, the Pribilof Islands skins, known in the trade as Alaskan; next, the Copper Island skins, which include all the Russian islands supply; then the Xorthwest coast catch, which by trade custom comprises all the pelagic catch in the North Pacific and Bering Sea; after that the Lobos Island skins, followed by those from Cape Horn, and last of all the Cape of Good Hope skins. Those technically known as South Sea skins are rare and valuable. ii6 Report on " Seals and sealing in Uruguay.'''' [Transmitted by United States consul at Montevideo, John W. O'Hara, May i6, 1906.] It is definitely known that both hair and fur seals have been taken along the coast of Uruguay for more than fifty years, but the local people have taken but little interest in the industry, and I am informed that no calculation has ever been made as to the number of fur seals annually frequenting the seal rookeries under the control of the Government of Uruguay. The seal rookeries are chiefly located on the islands of Lobos and Balano and along the eastern coast of Uruguay, the principal rookeries being situated upon the first-named island. These rookeries are frequented by both the fur seals and the hair seals, but chiefly by the latter. There is no statutory law in this country for the protection of seals or to regu- late sealing. The Government has merely issued an order prohibiting the taking of seals along the coasts of the country or upon or near the islands adjacent thereto, except by the lessees having concessions from the Government. The privilege of killing seals upon the mainland or in the waters or islands adjacent is leased by the Government to the highest bidder at public auction, and is granted for a period of eight years. Under the present contract the Government receives an annual sum of 146,300 as rent for the concession, and there is, in addi- tion to this amount, a duty of ig cents levied by the Government upon each skin exported, and an additional amount of 40 cents upon each seal taken — a municipal tax levied by the Departments of Maldonado and Rocha, the Departments adjacent to which the seals are taken, and to which the islands belong. The number of seals taken within the past ten years is as follows: Year. 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1004 Pelagic sealers. 1905 Total Fur seals. 21,824 16,324 15.265 14,601 14,865 12,938 16,386 11,084 8,336 9,000 3-019 143-632 Hair seals. 2. 341 2,967 2>432 3.035 3,964 3,330 4,781 2,744 2,544 2,635 30,773 Until a little more than a year ago no complaint had ever been made of pelagic sealers, but since that time two vessels in particular have been taken, charged with taking seals from the rookeries of Uruguay without authority. The first was the Agnes G. Donahoe, a Canadian vessel, and the second the Emma, a Chilean. Both were captured, brought into port, and held for some time, the Emma being still in custody. It was claimed by the captured sealers that they had taken their seals on the high seas, and as the Uruguayan Government had no definite penalty prescribed for the punishment -of pelagic sealers the Agnes G. Donahoe was released. It is complained by the concessionnaires that they have been particularly damaged by the pelagic sealers because the seals alleged to have been illegally taken were killed during the breeding season, and that therefore a permanent injury was inflicted. 117 The killing season extends, according to the Government concessions, from the 15th of Maj' until the 15th of October of each year. The concessionnaires got but 3,oig fur seals during the year 1905, on acvjount of the raids that they claim were made by the pelagic sealers, from whom were captured 9,000 fur seals, found on board their vessels. The hair-seal skins have a very small value and are usually sold locally at something less than a dollar each. The fur-seal skins are all exported, there being no local market in this country for them. The lessees employ about fifty hands during the killing season. These men are transferred to the various islands and have their homes on the mainland in the vicinity of the rookeries. No one except those actually employed is permitted by the Government even to visit or approach the islands either in sealing season or at any other time. This is one of the stipu- lations of the concession. The seal skins in the past have all been shipped to the English market, and are similar in quality to those taken in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. The com- pany at present holding the exclusive right to the seals in Uruguayan waters is the " Uruguay Lobos Fishing Company (Limited)," of 102 Victoria street, Westminster, London. The Government now has under consideration a bill recently introduced for a law for the protection of the seal fisheries and providing a punishment for pelagic sealing. The necessity for this law was made apparent in the litigation that fol- lowed the capture of the Canadian vessel, the Agnes G. Donahoe. "G." Report on " Sealiyig at Falkland Islands." [Extract from letter of August ao, 1906, from H. E. W. Grant, Colonial Secretary, to J. E. Rowen, United States consul at Stanley, Falkland Islands.l With regard to the sealing interests, I am to inform you that there are only four small fur-seal rookeries in the colony, and that the number of seal skins exported in 1905 was 151. The number allowed to be caught is strictly limited. There are several rookeries of hair seal, but practically no hair skins are exported. There appears to be no present market for this article in England. No fur-seal skins were imported in 1905 for the purpose of transshipment or exportation, owing to the duty of 10 shillings on each skin. The duty was reduced in May last to i shilling. I am to inclose for your information a copy of the Seal Fishery Ordinance, 1899. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. Q\'^^ B\ V^. ^fM^tW^^^^' tvA^^N LD4i wm p.^A. 1966 HOjNJ 19181(1 Form L9-40wi-7,'56(C790s4)444 UNIVER'^'^^Y OF CALIFORls^IA LOS ANGELES PAMPHLET BINDER ^^ZZ Syrocuse, N. Y. ^^^ Stockton, Calif. UC SOUTHERr^ REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY I PLEA§p DO NOT REMOVE THIS BOOK CARDS m /s,NNt LIBRARY^ c X Ui University Research Library t S3 5"n > o