Terms of lease. of July 1, 1870,' and far more favorable than the lease of the Commander and Robben islands

1874.

granted by the Russian Government to the same company in 1871.2

Amendment of On the 24th of March, 1874, an act amendatory of the act of July 1, 1870, was passed by Congress, by which the Secretary of the Treasury was given authority to designate the months in which seals might be taken on the islands and the number to be taken thereon; thus placing the immediate control of the killing in the hands of the Government officials, with power to modify and reduce the quota allowed, at any time when it was deemed necessary for the protection of seal life upon the islands. It is evident, therefore, that the United States has taken the greatest precautions to limit the number killed in such a way as to preserve the seal herd from depletion.

Investigation of

1876.

The origin and practical workings of the lease of 1870 were made the subject of an elaborate investigation in 1876 by the Committee of Ways and Means of the Forty-fourth Congress, who reported that in their opinion the terms of the lease were highly favorable to the Government and

1 Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 8.

2 Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 7.

3 U. S. Stats. at Large, vol. xvп, c. 64, p. 24.

1876.

all parties concerned; and that "the contract as Investigation of made was the best disposition of this interest that could have been made, for it is certain that it has resulted in the receipt of a very large revenue to the Treasury and in an amelioration of the physical and moral condition of the natives."1

1888.

In a subsequent investigation in 1888, by the Investigation of Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the Fiftieth Congress the same conclusion was reached, the report stating:

"That the Alaska Commercial Company has fully performed its contract with the Government and has contributed largely to the support, maintenance, comfort, and civilization of the inhabitants, not only of the seal islands, but also to those of the Aleutian Islands, Kadiak, and the mainland."2

Both the above-mentioned committees also Methods of mantook into consideration the method of administer

ing the seal rookeries as established by the act of July 1, 1870. One of the three following means must of necessity have been adopted for the management of the islands, viz, (1) leasing to a company; (2) making the rookeries free to the public; or (3) the Government itself working the rookeries.

Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 12.

-H. R. No. 3883, Fiftieth Congress, second session, p. xxiii.

2716

-18

agement.

The second course would concededly have resulted in the extermination of the Alaska seal herd in a very short time,' as it has in all cases where seal killing has been general and unlimited.2

The third method, direct management by the Government, was also deemed impracticable to the committees who investigated the question. The committee of Congress in 1876 reported that in their judgment the Government could not advantageously assume charge itself of the seal industry and did wisely to intrust it to the Alaska Commercial Company. The committee of Congress which made a thorough examination of the question in 1888 reported: "All these witnesses (those examined by the committee) concur in testifying to the wisdom of the existing law on the subject, and favor the retention of the present system. All other existing rookeries are managed substantially in the same way by the different Governments to which they belong, all following the lead of Russia, who managed and protected our rookeries by a similar method from their discovery until their transfer to the United

1 Senate Doc. No. 48, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 4. Post, p. 218.

3 Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Con gress, first session, p. 12.

ernment impracti

States. It did not require the testimony of wit- Working by Govnesses to convince the committee that the Gov- cable. ernment itself could not successfully manage this business." It is evident from the nature of the industry that in case the sealing on the islands should be managed directly by the Government the opportunities for fraud and theft are very great on the part of the agents, who under the act of 1870 are prohibited from being in anyway connected or interested in the industry; as it is now the lessees and agents are restraints upon each other. Further, the business requires expert knowledge of seal habits, the market, and the transactions pertaining to the sale of the skins, necessitating the presence of agents, not only on the islands, but in San Francisco and London, who are thoroughly conversant with these points. Immediate Government management is at once seen to be impracticable under these circumstances and the present method employed to be the only feasible one.

lease of 1870.

The careful investigations made by the Con-, Workings of the gressional committees showed that the Alaska Commercial Company had fulfilled the terms of the lease in all respects according to the require

Report No. 3883, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, second session, p. xxiii.

Workings of the ments of the Act of 1870; that in compliance

lease of 1870.

2

with the terms of the lease (many of which are not contained in the Act of 1870) the lessees furnished the inhabitants of the islands with a large number of commodious dwellings, without charging rent, and making free repairs; built them two free schools; kept stores at which goods were sold at low prices; supplied them with free provisions, medicines, and medical attendance; 5 established and maintained for them a savings bank, with a total of over forty thousand dollars of deposits, and prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors on the islands."

6

CONDITION OF THE NATIVES.

The improvement in the condition of the natives of the Pribilof Islands is one of the marked features of the benefit which has resulted

1 Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 11; Report No. 3883, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, second session, p. xxiii.

2 Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 30; Report No. 3883, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, second session., pp. 31, 32.

3 Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, pp. 30, 33; Report No. 3883, House of Represen. tatives, Fiftieth Congress, second session, p. 31.

Report No. 623, House of Representatives, Forty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 30, No. 3883, House of Representatives, Fiftieth Congress, second session, p. 32.

5 Same report, p. 30.

66 p. 31.

66

p. 32.