THE ALASKA FISHERMAN
Published the 15th of each month at Ketchikan, Alaska
WILLIAM L. PAUL, ATTORNEY FOR TIIE
Alaska Native Brotherhood
Entered as second-class matter at the Post Office at
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE $2.00 LOR TWELVE ISSUES
OUR PLATFORM:
ABOLISHMENT OF ALL TRAPS.
ALASKA FOR ALASKANS.
FULL TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.
ONE NATION, ONE LANGUAGE, ONE FLAG.
Fooling’ Congressmen
The report of the hearings on the “White Bill”
has reached us and a perusal of the testimony
shows that the cannery interests are still at their
old game of fooling members of congress by mis
representation of conditions in Alaskan fisheries.
We herewith present some of the questions asked
E. S. McCord, attorney for the canneries, and
his replies thereto. Those who know fishery
conditions from practical experience will see that
“the truth is not in him” (Mr. McCord).
Mr. Bland—As a matter of fact, Mr. McCord,
the Chambers of Commerce are practically domi
nated by the packers, are they not?
Mr. McCord—I do not think so at all.
Mr. Sutherland—Do you think the Seattle
Chamber of Commerce acted of its own free will
in indorsing this bill?
Mr. McCord—I do.
❖ * * * * * *
Mr. McKeown—I want to know the effect in
your judgment the abolition of traps would have
on the price of salmon to the public.
McCord—It would have a very decided effect
because it would put out of business a large
number of canners who could not get money to
equip purse seine boats and could not get finan
cial support of the bankers and it would reduc
the pack correspondingly.
❖ * >is sk sis sis
Mr. Davis—You talk about the loss to your
traps.
McCord—I mean trap locations. We would not
lose the trap.
We would that, anyway, at the end of the sea
son, but we would lose the value of the site on
which the trap is driven every year which have
cost $20,000,000 at least.
Mr. McKeown—I recognize about possessory
rights, you have invested money in that but that
is not a very large sum. The construction of the
traps is a large investment.
McCord—No, I think not. The cost is $20,
000,000 to buy these locations.
Sutherland—In Alaska ?
McCord—Yes, sir.
Sutherland—$20,000,000 to buy locations?
McCord—I mean for discovering them and
buying them.
Mr. Reed—Are we a salmon-eating people?
McCord—Yes.
McKeown—I was trying to see if we could
abolish the traps entirely.
*******
McCord—I think it is safe to say that canned
salmon of trapped fish has never been con
demned (because) the freshness of the fish can
at all times be known by the packer. This is
not always true of seined fish. The fisherman
who catch the fish get a specific sum for each
fish from the cannery, and if the fisherman
states to the cairier who brings the fish from
the fishing grounds to the cannery that a certain
quantity has just been taken from the water, it
is easy to deceive the packer if such is not the
case.
(Note:—In the year 1921, the Point Ellis can
nery was unable to get to one of its traps for
three weeks. As there was no watchman at the
trap, the trap kept right on fishing day and
night and during the closed period. When the
cannery tender came for the fish, thousands of
salmon were dead, and had been dead for many
days. But the tender picked them up, took them
to the cannery, and PACKED THEM. I can
prove what I say).
It should make any real Alaskan sick to read
lies made out of whole cloth by men like Mc
Cord. I call them lies because he presumes to
testify about conditions totally outside of his
experience.
Some experts—so-called—claim to be able to
tell the difference between trap caught fish and
seine caught fish. The truth is that this is im
possible from the most careful examination of
the salmon even by a Dr. Chas. H. Gilbert. Ex
perienced fishermen can tell when a boat brings
in trap fish all right, not on account of fresh
ness or condition of the salmon, but by the mix
ture of the different species.
McCord says that he feels confident that no
trap caught salmon canned has ever been con
demned. Pure Bunk! For a long time, the can
nerymen pretended that they segregated their
pack according to the class of gear that caught
them. Segregation, however, has never been
made^ except in the mind of the canneryman.
We do know from the record that the canneries
who have had the largest number of cases con
demned have been canneries that use trap fish
almost entirely.
Take it from the record.
Page 58, H. R. 2714, hearings January 31 to
February 8, 1924.
Sutherland—Very briefly from the hearing of
the committee on expenditures in the War De
partment, the select committee of which Mr.
Graham was chairman. They found those men
(the Alaska canners) guilty of preparing decom
posed fish, which was decomposed when it was
put in the cans. They canned 108,000 cases and
shipped it to the Army and the Bureau of Chem
istry seized them and inspected them and found
they were rotten when placed in the cans, and
they recommended that the Department of Jus
tice proceed to institute criminal proceedings
against those canners who packed and sold or
attempted to sell adulterated salmon to the gov
ernment.