in a bundle.

If these bundles had contained more than two Only two skins skins, such fact would have been known to the London firm; but it is specifically stated by them that they never found more than two sealskins in any of the bundles consigned to them by the Alaska Commercial Company during the nineteen years of the lease. This evidence is further supported by the testimony of the vicepresident of the Alaska Commercial Company, who made the annual examination of a few skins from each cargo when the quota arrived at San Francisco; by the sworn statements of the packer of the sealskins; by the foreman of the stevedores who unloaded the company's steamer; and by Capt. Erskine, who has commanded. the company's steamer for over twenty years.5 Those who are familiar with the handling of raw sealskins state that three skins could not be detected. rolled in a bundle without exposure of such fact, and that it would be impossible to roll four skins. together under any circumstances. This fact was further verified by Maj. W. H. Williams, who made a special investigation on this point in 1892.7

'Letter from C. M. Lampson & Co., post p. 415; Alfred Fraser, post p. 415.

2 Gustave Niebaum, post p. 382.

Martin Myer, post p. 380.

4 James B. Brown, post p. 358.

M. C. Erkine, post p. 360.

Martin Myer, post p. 380; Gustave Niebaum, post p. 3S2. 7 W. H. Williams, post p. 399.

Three skins in a bundle would be

weight of bundles.

Implied fraud in The Commissioners further rely upon Mr. Elliott's statement, that skins weigh from 5 pounds to 12 pounds (Sec. 671), and upon the comparison of such statement with that of Lieut. Maynard, "an independent observer," who gives the average weight of bundles as 22 pounds and the weight of the largest as 64 pounds (Sec. 672). This "appears" to the Commissioners to require "some explanation" (Sec. 673). The implication is evident, and the United States offer the explanation in vindication of the officers of the GovExplanation of ernment who are thus charged. A bundle conweight. tains not only the two sealskins proper, but salt and blubber, with which they are packed for their preservation; this naturally adds greatly to the weight, as does also the moisture collected by the salt and fur. A bundle will, therefore, sometimes weigh as much as 60 or 70 pounds, if the two pelts are large, and even when consisting of only two skins of "yearling pups," weighing when dry probably 5 pounds, the bundle weighs sometimes 20 pounds. It is also a fact that in the early years of the lease some exceptionally large skins were taken on the islands."

Various counts of skins compared.

A comparative statement of the counts of the sealskins for the entire term of the lease, made, respectively, by the Government official on the Is

W. H. Williams, post p. 399; Louis Sloss, jr., post p. 384.
H. H. McIntyre, post p. 373.

of skins compared.

lands, the custom-house inspector at San Fran- Varions counts cisco, the Alaska Commercial Company's packers before shipment to London, and by C. M. Lampson & Company, shows that but 900 more skins were sold during twenty years in London than appear in the original count made when the bundles were loaded on the steamer at the Pribilof Islands.1 This is an average of 45 skins per year ment of counts. out of a quota of 100,000, which quota was fully taken in seven years only. To this extent, and to this extent alone, can fraud be charged.

In 1875 Special Agent J. S. Moore made a report to the Secretary of the Treasury, embodying the result of certain investigations made by him as to the number of skins taken by the lessees of the Pribilof Islands. He found that 559 more skins had been sold in London than those accounted for in the tax receipts from the Treasury Department, and he submitted a table, compiled by him, giving the number of skins on which tax was paid, the number accounted for as shipped to C. M. Lampson & Company, and the number sold by them. He summarizes the result of his investigation as follows: "I am perfectly satisfied that these figures are correct, unless not only the company, but the customs officers on the Islands, the officers of the ships that bring the

Max Heilbronner, post p. 368.

Practical agree

Moore's report

of 1875.

of 1875.

Moore's report skins, the customs officials at San Francisco, and the great house of Messrs. Lampson & Company in London are one and all in collusion and conspiracy to defraud the Treasury of the United States. There would, besides, be another difficulty to overcome, as it would be necessary to keep false books and false entries, while in fact nothing is so easily detected as false bookkeeping."1

Employés of lessees as Government agents.

As to the allegations in the Report that Government officials were formerly employés of the lessees, the United States admit that in one instance a Government agent (John M. Morton), who had charge of the administration of the Pribilof Islands, was formerly in the employ of the Alaska Commercial Company,2 but deny that any similar case has occurred, and assert that the imputation of fraud from such a circumstance is unwarranted.

Further vindication of the officials and citizens of the United States, to whom the Commissioners have seen fit to impute fraudulent practices and conspiracy to defraud the Government of the United States, is considered to be unnecessary.

THIRD.

REGULATIONS PROPOSED IN THE REPORT.

The Commissioners of Great Britain have introduced in their Report a number of schemos for the future regulation of taking fur-seals belonging to the Alaskan herd. The United States, The only regu

insist, as claimed in their Case, that they have, upon the facts established by the evidence, such a property and interest in the seal herd frequenting the Islands of the United States in Bering Sea, and in the industry there maintained arising out of it, as entitles them to protection and to be protected by the award of this Tribunal against all pelagic sealing, which is the subject of controversy in this Case. And, quite irrespective of any right of property or of selfdefense in respect of their territorial interests, they claim to have clearly shown that no regulations short of prohibition will be sufficient to prevent the early destruction of the Alaskan seal herd.

lations sufficient.

Tribunal of Arbi

In a consideration of these regulations sug- Jurisdiction of gested, it is apparent that the principal curtail-tration. ment of seal-killing, in each of the various plans proposed, is to be applied to the Pribilof Islands.