Alaska and the Nation
By ANTHONY J. DIMOND
Delegate to Congress from Alaska
(Foreword*: In the let'ers of
news and comment for Alaska, ol
which this is one, nothing will be
written which is based on secret
or confidential sources, and noth
ing which can be considered ob
jectionable by military or other
censorship in Alaska.
Wallgren Fisheries Bill
On March 9 the Sena'e Com
mittee on Commerce reported the
bill, S. 930, favorably. There is no
dissenting or minority op.nion
and therefore I suppose we may
consider the report as expressing
the unanimous opinion ot that
commit'ee. Copies of the report
and of the bill as proposed to be
amended were immediately mail
ed to Alaska.
The report, as an example of
special pleading, is in some re
spects admirable. But the report,
no matter how skillfully put to
ge’her, should not be permitted
to deceive anyone into believing
that the bill as reported is much
changed from the form in which
it was originally introduced. The
bill is still, in my judgment, large
ly, if not entirely, objectionable
to most Alaskans for the follow
ing reasons: 1. The report is evi
dently designed to give the im
pression that the inhibition con
tained in the White Act (Act of
June 6. 1924) against any ‘ exclu
sive or several right of fishery”
is unchanged That provision
was put in the White Act to pre
vent the parceling out of fishing
areas to designated individuals or
corporations, to the exclusion of
ail others, and is intended to pro
vide for equality of opportunity
for all citizens. Let us here com
pare the relative provisions of the
Whi’e Act and of the bill as rec
ommended by the Committee. The
White Act states “that no exclu
sive or several right of fishery
shall be granted therein, nor shall
any citizen of ’he United States
be den.ed the right to take, pre
pare, cure or preserve fish or
shellfish in any area of the wa
tt ❖++++■!*++++++<!»+•S-+ + -I* -S-t* •
,i r of Alaska where fishing i
permit ed by the Secret ry c
Commerce." The bill as now pro
posed bv the commit'ee has th
follow ng corresponding provi
sion: ‘‘It is further declared tc
be the policy of the United State
that, subject to the provisions of
this Act. no exclusive or several
right of fishery shall be granted
in any of the wa'ers of Alaska,
nor shall any citizen of the United
States be denied the right to take,
prepare, cure, or preserve fish or
shellfish in any area of the waters
of Alaska not included in the
coastal waters of the Annette Is
land Reserve, where fishing i
permitted by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service of th
Department of the Interior."
On Page 6 of the committee's
report reference is made to "the
re-enactment without change of
the language of existing law" and
“the committee believes that leav
ing unchanged the language of
existing law . . .”
Those two declarations of the
report are not factually correct
and should not be relied upon. A
comparison of the language of the
White Act forbidding the grant
ing of any exclusive or several
right of fishery and the language
of the proposed bill shows that
the bill does repeat the language
of the White Act but also con
tains the following words which
ought to be written in capitals
and underlined in red ink: "sub
ject to the provisions of this Act."
In o'her words, the White Act o
1924, with its inhibitions against
exclusive or several right of fish
ery, is to remain unchanged ex
cept as modified by the provisions
of the bill. And the bill does
modify the provisions of the White
Act almost without limit because
the bill provides for the granting
of leases to trap sites, thus giv
ing the exclusive and several
right to fish to those sites, wi'h
provision for renewal and with
•t4+4,H'++44+++'M,+*+t++++*
f ❖
! YOUR TWO-TIMING I
♦ 4
f 4
z 4
♦ ... three-piece suit needs double care for |
f its desk dutv and after-five wear! I
f *
... Modern Dry Cleaning can keep it look- J
f 4
J ing new season after season. Colors become 4
gay again—Patterns are brightened. You’ll J
♦ be delighted. The cost is modest. Just call |
X |
(CLOSED FOR APPROXIMATELY J
| TWO WEEKS! |
1 MODERN CLEANERS
+ I
2 (Modern Cleaning la Clothes Insurance!) 4
{ “A Stamp a Day Keeps the Japs Away!” |
♦ I
<M1 I I » H tH 4"H' l'lH44441M»4 I l t4' l't l 4444'>4444»44»4»
4^4 A A 4^44^4 A A A A 4^4 4^4 4^44^44^44^4^44^44^44^ f
^
i I
♦ For the Best Interest X
t ♦!♦
v 2
♦ v
t of :
♦!♦ I
♦ 4%
£ Your Public School 4
* |
f Vote For
| 4
I N. STRAND 1
i I
| Member of the |
} SCHOOL BOARD f
NEWFOUNDLAND GRAVEYARD — At Argent!*, Newfoundland, last port of call for
ahios bound to United Kingdom over the northern route mveaof war dead are marked with crosseat
other provisions establishing pri
ori y rights virtually in perpetu
ity; and the b 11 also con'ains pro
visions requiring licenses of those
who fish with all types of gear.
S >, if the bill is passed in the
form now presented, the above
quoted provision of the White
Act is clearly meaningless. And,
therefore, ‘he report is, in the re
spect mentioned, so far from be
ing dependable that it may ac
tually deceive those who fail to
make factual check on the state
ments therein contained.
2. As indicated above the l'ea_
tures of the original bill relating
to fish traps remain virtually un
changed in the bill as reported by
the committee. In commen*ing
upon this feature of the measure,
the Committee Report 'page 11'
; contains the following: ‘‘As to the
legal deba'e about so-called vested
rights, the committee is likewise
satisfied that what is provided in
section 7 is no more than the sit
uatiun in all fa f ness requires.
jThe permit or leaseholder has no
I right to continue fishing if the Di
rector closes any area for conser
vation reasons. If the permittee
or leaseholder has his fishing
privilege taken away because con
servation requires that it be ta
ken. he has no right to compensa
sation. Moreover, under S. 93h
if ‘he holder of a permit or lease
dies, his heirs cannot inherit, or
if he wants to sell he cannot do
so, without the specific permiss on
of the Director. If the permittee
or leasee abuses the fishing privi
lege, including ’he deliberate
continuous nonuse, he likewise
(loses his permit or lease. In addi
tion, the lapse of a complete fish*
i ing cycle may destroy a priority
position.”
There is nothing in the bill, in
(my judgment, to justify the state
ment that if the holder of a trap
site lease dies, his heirs canno*
inherit. In fact, there is sound
reason in law and In equi’y why
if a lease is granted, the heirs
should inherit. Otherwise, there
should be no lease in the first
instance. The language of the re
port on this portion of the bill
reinforces the conclusion that the
entire measure is really written
j around the proposal to create vest
ed permanent interests, all but
perpetual, in fish traps and fish
trap sites.
3. The bill as reported still con
tains the ambiguous and therefore
objectionable language providing
for forfeiture of permits and leas
es for what is called in the bill
j ‘‘abuse of the fishing privilege.”
Nowhere in the law can be found
j any definition of what can be con
j sidered ‘‘abuse of the fishing
' privilege,” and, therefore, the use
: of that term, which may mean one
j thing to one person and quite an
other thing to another, opens the
: door wide to arbitrary action on
| the part of administrative author
> ity and is almost certain to lead
to prolonged and extensive liti
gation. It is conceivable that th?
holder of the permit to fish with
a seine, if the bill is enacted will
be considered to have “abused”
the fishing privilege if he as much
as speaks disrespectfully 4o some
one in authority. I purposely take
an extreme case as an example
because no person in the whole
wide world can even guess in ad
vance how that particular phrase
will be construed, either by the
administrative officials or by 4he
courts.
4. The bill contains no provi
sion whatever which will safe
guard residents of Alaska a
against the more clamorous and
often more influential residents
of the States who engage in fish
ing in Alaska. Our experience in
the past has shown the need of
some protection for residents of
the Territory. Any suggestion
that authority should be given,
even though indirectly and per
haps with risk, for the projection
of residents of Alaska is dismissed
in the report as an undesirable
“administrative social-economic
reorganization of the industry”.
5. The provision of the original
bill for the creation of what is
called 4he “Alaska Fishery Re
view Board” remains unchanged.
The Board will consist of three
members and two alternates, and
it is provided that “One of such
members and one alternate shall
be selected by employees engaged
in the Alaska fishing industry,
NOTICE OF ELECTION
Notice is hereby given that the
annual Municipal and School
Board election of the City of
Nome, and Nome School District
will be held on April 4th, 1944, at
City Hall, Nome, Alaska, for the
purpose of electing *he following
officers, viz:
Mayor; three members of the
Common Council; a City Treasur
er; City Attorney; City Clerk and
one member of the School Board.
And I hereby CERTIFY that the
following named candidates have
been regularly nominated in ac
cordance with the City Ordinance
pertaining to same to-wit:
For Mayor: Edward Anderson,
S. David Ma^en, Jay R. Smith
For Councilmen: Robert F.
Baldwin, Audrey Henderson,
Keith Hedreen, Ralph Kitzmiller,
Joseph Mullins, Peter L. Reader,
Grady Robinette, Hugh Gabbard
For City Clerk: Carrie M. Mc
Lain.
For City Attorney: C. C. Tan
ner.
For City Treasurer: Harry Gab
rielson.
For member of School Board:
Lester Bronson, Nels Strand.
Polls will open at 8:00 a m.
and close at 6:00 p. m.
CARRIE M. McLAIN,
City Clerk.
Mar. 31st-Apr. 3.
+++<++++++++++*++*+++*+++++++**+*+++++++++**+,*,'*'*M2;
NEVADA BAR
I AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE j \
| THE NEVADA COCKTAIL LOUNGE IS CLOSED FOR J;
♦ THE WINTER, EXCEPT TO PARTIES MAKING SPECIAL ”
T ARRANGEMENTS! , !!
| THE FINEST IN WINES AND LIQUORS j;
| Harry Gabrielson, Prop •;
and one of such members and one
alternate shall be selected by the
employers engaged in the Alaska
filing industry, pursuant to such
regulations as the Secretary of
the Interior shall prescribe in or
der to make such selection reason,
ably representative." Under this
lu 'guage, unless the secretary,
himself, insists that one or both
of the advisory members be resi
c!fp's of Alaska, it is all bu* cer
tain that both of them will be
non-residents of Alaska. Indeed,
t is hard to escape the conclu
sion that the bill was drawn wi'ih
the purpose in view of complete
lv excluding residents of Alnsk"
from any position of responsibil
ity in the administration of Alas
ka fisheries.
8. The bdl still contains the
provision for judicial review *o
be had only in the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals for tb'
District of Columbia or the United
States Circuit Court of Appeab
for ^ie Ninth Circuit. The ordi
nary fisherman would find it dif
■ ficult indeed to invoke the power
and authority of ’ttither of the
cour s mentioned. The judicial
review should be had in the dis
I ct court of the Territory1—ftf..
i Ala: ka, which is available to
! every Alaska resident. The ex
i elusion of the district court of
Alaska from the courts having
au hority for judicial review is
another proof, if one were need -
ed, that the whole bill is oriented
around the idea that the Alaska
f sheries should be controlled
from Seattle or San Francisco and
that no Alaskan should have any
‘King to say about them.
7. The unjustly repressive ele
ment of existing law providing
for the seizure and forfeiture of
fishing boats and fishing gear has
been carried forward in S. 930
as reported without satisfactory
change. In any general revision
of the Alaska fisheries law, we
should end once and for all the
features of exis'ing law under
which a fisherman's boat and gear
may be seized and held for for
feiture in the district court—per
haps for the entire fishing sea
son—without any conviction or
even tr al of the alleged criminal
offense involved. To so seize and
forfei* fishing boats and gear,
even after conviction of crime, is
questionable upon grounds of jus
tice: but to permit the seizure and
holding for forfeiture prior to
conviction of crime and under
circumstances which may deprive
the fisherman of the use of his
boa* and gear for the entire sea
son cannot be defended.
Subscribe for The Nugget.
i
♦ I
Our Service Is
| IMPARTIAL! j
:: —but— ::
We Do Have
f FAVORITES! !!
«> Those Who Measure Tanks Before Ordering! — J|
\ \ Those Who Mail Checks Promptly on Receipt of Oil Slip. ,,
, Those Who Do Not Run Out of Oil on Sundays or After . • ►
' • 5:00 P. M. I ] \
| Those Who Phone in or Leave Orders at the Office. ■ >
«• THE RULES ARE SIMPLE—EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND 11
;; FOLLOW—AND NOT TOO UNREASONABLE!
I; | <»
•! You, Too. Can Be A i
FAVORITE!
!i! Diesel Oil Sales !j
> o
g -VOTE FOR- 11
I John E. Manders |
n Republican Candidate fo* domination for ?!;
I DELEGATE TO CONGRESS |