The Coast and Geodetic Survey employs 14 steam and 3 sailing vessels. In anticipation of the early completion of the Panama Canal, instructions have been given to make a detailed survey of the approaches to the canal. This Bureau furnishes another illustration of cooperation with other governmental agencies. The State of Delaware was assisted by experts from this Bureau and from the Bureau of Fisheries in making an oyster survey. The delimitation of the Alaska frontier and the re-marking of the boundary between the United States and Canada is progressing under the direction of the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey acting for the Department of State.

Under the direction of the Bureau of Navigation a complete wireless system has been installed in obedience to the act of Congress of June 24, 1910. It has hired various motor boats to enforce navigation laws, and is now engaged in bringing to justice persons who have been guilty of procuring crews by improper methods. Its immediate force is small, because in many respects officials of the Treasury Department represent this Bureau. In this connection the proposed readjustment of customs districts is of great importance. Ports that have practically no customs collections may have important work for the Bureau of Navigation, and if the customs office is abolished at such a point it may become necessary to provide another officer for this Bureau. This would become even more important if provision is made for the police control upon navigable waters. It appears to be a well-founded complaint that frequently the police control of municipalities is evaded by vessels that go out beyond State jurisdiction, and that many of the worst crimes are to be attributed to this lack of police control. This condition can probably not be corrected without Federal aid.

The Steamboat-Inspection Service reports 392 lives lost out of a total of 314,768,885 passengers carried by water. This includes every loss from any cause. Nevertheless, I am disposed to recommend that the law governing the personnel of crews should be strengthened so as to afford better guaranty, more especially as to the fitness of men so employed. It appears to me that in this respect the law has not kept pace with statutes governing common carriers by land.

COMPLAINTS.

There have been complaints made of the Immigration Service and of the management of the seal interests in the Fisheries Bureau, both of which have been conducted under my immediate supervision.

IMMIGRATION.

In the Immigration Service it would be unreasonable to look for peace. The questions involved are in their very nature calculated to excite controversy; particularly in a country which, on the one hand, has a large population whose interest in new immigration is based upon considerations of immediate relationship and natural sympathy, and which, on the other hand, has a citizenship which is strongly impressed with the need for more restriction. Such a situation makes for unceasing agitation for the amendment of the immigration laws, and it goes without saying that so intense a conflict must be reflected in public judgment of the administration of existing law. In point of fact, the contending forces to this controversy are much more evenly divided than appears on the surface. It is true that the critics of the law and of its enforcement are most successful in bringing their grievances to public attention. It is equally true that the files of the Department contain earnest declarations from representatives of State eleemosynary institutions, from labor organizations, and from others in favor of a strict administration of the immigration laws. Again, while the criticism of too strict administration has been practically centered upon one point-Ellis Island— the criticism of too lax administration comes from different parts of the country. The first appears to be predicated more especially upon interest in individual cases, while the latter seems to be concerned more with the general problem.

With the effect of this agitation upon proposed amendments the Department has, of course, nothing to do, unless it be, upon invitation, to make recommendations. The immediate effect upon immigration may be matter of speculation. It is my impression that the kind of criticism which has at times been offered must serve to discourage desirable immigration. If people abroad who are free to choose give any heed to the extravagant accounts which have found their way into the press, the effect must be discouraging as to them. On the other hand, undesirable immigrants are probably affected very little by these reports, because it may be assumed that at least a certain proportion of them do not come to our shores induced by their own initiative or decision.

With respect to the administrators of the law, the effect has been to guard in every way against hardship and discomfort, always with an eye to the rational enforcement of the law. It is perfectly true that many immigrants are temporarily detained, to their disappointment and discomfort, although they may subsequently be found to be clearly admissible. But it would be unsafe to argue from this premise that the detention was improper. We know from complaints

of State officials and from our own deportation records that a large number of immigrants are improperly admitted. We know that the amount of false testimony given even in otherwise good cases is very considerable, and our desire to make allowance for poor advice and coaching by interested parties is often strained to the breaking point. Questions of physical or mental soundness, and particularly questions of character, involving criminal records, can not be determined at a glance.

Under these circumstances the effort to segregate those who should be admitted from the rest involves patience, discretion, and, often, time. Frequently the deserving suffer for the undeserving, but this is not an uncommon experience. It is exemplified at the dock upon the return of any steamer laden with American travelers. If all passengers made proper returns, there would be little delay. But they do not all do it, and so there is delay and annoyance for everyone.

To sum it up, the administration of the Bureau has endeavored to observe the general mandate of the law and to relieve against hardship for the individual wherever the statute allows it. This appears to be a reasonable administration of a law which deals with men, women, and children who have disposed of their belongings, who often have immediate alliances in this country, who may be destined to become citizens, and who, in any event, are entitled to the fairest possible treatment. Perhaps the hearing had before the House Commitee on Rules is best calculated to give a true picture of the character of the Service.

All this is not said with the hope to satisfy criticism, which, under existing conditions, is probably unavoidable, and which should be accepted as a further incentive to care, vigilance, and sympathy. In the meantime Lincoln's advice finds renewed application: "If both factions, or neither, shall abuse you, you will probably be about right. Beware of being assailed by one and praised by the other."

SEAL HERDS.

With respect to the management of the seal herds, the controversy that was inaugurated in 1909 is still alive and is now pending before the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor. Indiscriminate attack has been visited upon everyone who is concerned with the administration of the seal interests, embracing those who have to do with making orders as well as those who are charged with their enforcement. It is difficult to divine a reason for such attack, because in no event can anything but a question of judgment be involved; and it will be well at this time. not to permit the real issue to be obscured by a consideration of personal controversy.

Originally three suggestions were advanced: First, that every effort should be made to stop pelagic sealing-that is, killing at sea; second, that at the expiration of the North American Commercial Co. lease, on May 1, 1910, the Government should take over the management of the seal herds; third, that all killing of seals on land should be abated for a number of years.

As to the first proposition, as far as I know all were of one mind— those who believed that pelagic sealing was only in part responsible for the depletion of the seal herds and those who contended that it was the sole cause of the depletion. As is well known, the Department of State had for many years endeavored to secure a treaty to abolish pelagic sealing, and was, at the time this controversy originated, actually engaged in negotiations looking to that end. The only practical question, therefore, was how this muchdesired purpose could be best promoted by the Department of Commerce and Labor.

The second proposition (to have the Government take over the herds) is one which had been advanced but was rejected upon the ground that such a course would involve a business undertaking on the part of the Government. However sufficient this ground may have been in the past, it was not so regarded by those who now considered this matter. For one reason it may be said that perhaps such an undertaking by the Government may not now be regarded quite as it was then. No doubt the controlling reason for the changed attitude was that, owing to the depletion of the herds, the business feature of the undertaking had ceased to be paramount. Inasmuch as the problem had really become one of conservation, there appeared to be no impropriety, upon any theory, in having the Government assume complete control. It was therefore recommended by me, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that the law providing for leasing the right to kill seals be repealed, and that the Government be placed in control. The President made the recommendation to Congress, the law of April 21, 1910, was enacted, and as Secretary of Commerce and Labor I took charge.

This law presented for immediate decision the one question, whether the Government should continue to kill any male seals upon the Pribilof Islands, and the law placed the responsibility for that decision upon the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Two considerations were weighed by me in reaching a conclusion: (a) What would be the effect of my decision upon the prospect of securing a treaty to abolish pelagic sealing? (b) Apart from this, what effect would the killing of a certain percentage of male seals have upon the herd itself?

Those who opposed all killing asserted, as their chief ground, that unless a closed season was declared we could not hope to secure a

26321°-c & L 1911-2

treaty. It was urged that we must approach foreign countries with clean hands. Undoubtedly one of the avowed grounds for the changed policy in placing the Government in control and in giving the Secretary discretion to kill or not to kill was to leave the Government free to respond to any exigency that might arise during the negotiations for a treaty. To abolish pelagic sealing was the primary purpose. To accomplish this, obviously, the policy in the management of the herds best calculated to secure that result must be adopted. In other words, all questions were subordinated to the one controlling purpose to stop pelagic sealing.

It appeared to me that this argument in favor of declaring a closed season might have some weight. On the other hand, it was urged that our failure to kill male seals on land would only serve to increase the pelagic sealers' catch and might therefore render it more difficult to secure a treaty. The State Department, which was engaged in negotiating the treaty, rather favored a continuation of the practice of killing surplus male seals.

The second question (whether or not such killing would have a deleterious effect upon the herds), while not of such immediate importance, was also fully considered. As to it, the conclusion was reached upon the advice of experts that the killing of such surplus male seals would not have such an effect, but that, on the contrary, the failure to kill them would positively injure the herd. The policy to continue killing surplus male seals was therefore adopted and the necessary rules were made.

It is unnecessary now to argue about the correctness of the decision in so far as it affected the chances of a treaty. That question has been disposed of, and the question as to the propriety of killing surplus male seals may be judged upon its merits.

One of the results of the hearing before the House committee has been the introduction of a resolution declaring a closed season on the Pribilof Islands for 15 years, which is the period fixed by the seal treaty for the suppression of pelagic sealing. It is not for me at this time to discuss the wisdom of this resolution. I may, however, call attention to the fact that, while by the terms of the treaty each country reserves control over its herds, nevertheless the interests mutually set aside by the several countries clearly contemplate that there shall be sealskins to divide, and, indeed, the treaty provides money compensation in the event of a failure in that respect.

But in any event it is proper that I should at this time state unreservedly what course I shall follow if the resolution referred to is not adopted, and if the law leaves the decision with me. In the light of what I have seen and heard, there is but one conclusion to reach, which is to continue to kill surplus male seals. As to the correctness of the principle, I have no question; my only doubt arises