1 ONSKKVATION IN AUSliA \S I'iUCTII Kl) in THK BKIWIITMKXT
OF 1*0*1 MKKCK I'YOF.IS THK l>lllF<*TIOX OF THK HSU Till ST
KXTENSION of UKMARKS OF
HON. DAN A. SI THFIILAND
In the House of Representative?*
Saturday. February 2. 10 24.
(From th«* Congressional lie
MR. SlTTHF,RLANT>
routive orders, fisheries r
and tin* people protested ;i
rin* Department of Commer
etluxls adopted by
Trjlst
the pr
their right tai nur$ut
exercised that right.
in explanation that • . . *,» word "•:<> serration."
suspicion was allayed and the Fish Trust became sup”
waters. The Assistant Secretary of CoiriunerCp went so
tion the name of Roosevelt in support of this fishery g
mute that this method of taking a great natural resource
and giving it over to private monopoly corresponded to the conservation
]K>licies inaugurated by President Roosevelt.
The salmon fishing season is closed and the results are published bv .
the Department of Commerce, so that the work of that department n ,
th** public
and 1
and statements arrived at.
Destruction, Not Conservation
s been no destruction of our Alaskan salmon supply
place within the
has taken place
his destruction .
Department of j
<n ami approval
f ;JI fish or y laws.
Facts ami Figures
1 herewith present tabulated statements prepared from statictics
furnished by the Department of Comm re* which indisputably prove the
almost complete destruction of the fish supply within the reserved area?
for this season and for man; future years that correspond in four-year
periods with 1923. This is based on the fact that four years from time
of spawning until it* return to the parent steram constitutes the Life of
a red salmon.
After the Trust had persuaded the Department of Commerce to es
tablish. the reservations it was hut natural that the large packers should
formulate rules in discrimination against the small packers and indepen
dent fishermen, and so a system of limitation on packs was adopted
whereby the large runners were permitted to catch more salnmn
than the waters contained, and thus in trying to obtain as many fish ns
possible the waters of w«
termination.
The 1919 pack in 1
year 1919 would, accord:
in which the fish of 1923 were s
complete the life cycle of the s
of Commerce granted permits to
as were caught by the intensive
The four large canneries o
cases each, with unlimited gear.
Alaska Parkers Associut
Fidalgo Island Co. (Cas
Libby. McNeill & Libby.
N. W. Fisheries (Booth 1
erflshed
Inlet was less than 120,000 cases. The
the opinion of ichthyologists, be the year
spawned. I? is presumed that four years
soi keye salmon, and lints the Department
atch almost twice ;
00k Inlet which
fained tint followi
mny fish
,ire re allotted 40.000
Total (last1
or a total of loss than one half the allotted amount. Cook Inlet was
scraped from end to end for red salmon during the past season, res
idents of the inlet section report that Few. if any., ttsli escaped to the
spawning grounds.
The fishery of Cook Inlet is virtually destroyed for coming four-year
periods from 11)23, and this destruction has occurred under a policy ad
vertised to the country as '‘conservation.”
“Conservation" in Oiigaik Ray
We will now movp westward to Chignik Bay and view the result*
of "conservation” in that fishery for the season t9?3.
Three large canneries operated in this bay. Their allotment lim-i
its for the season 1923 were 50.000 eases each. The following table
shows the amount actually packed. With the same amount of gear that
was operated in previous years:
Alaska Packers Association (Actual pack). 23.298
Columbia River Packers Association (Actual pack) .23,279
■' S. W. Fisheries Co. (Actual pack) .23,309
Total cases packed . 69.886
This compilation shows that with intensive fishing the Chignik pack
ers could not catch one-half of the amount allotted to them by the De
partment of Commerce.
A rack or weir was -operated in Chignik River this season for the pur
pose of counting the number of fish that escaped to the spawning grounds,
and it was found that 216.124 redfish. or the equivalent of 18,000 cases
escaped, ho that the entire run <>f fish in Chignik Bay for the season of
1923 was 87.886 cases, or a little more than one-half the amount fixed
upon by the Department of Commerce for capture.
When scientific incompetence, under the pretense of conserving the
Alaska salmon supply, permits this wholesale destruction by the packers, i
it seems time for Congress to take an emphatic stand, or the same c.ondl- ’
tion that now obta'ns in Cook Inlet and Chignik fisheries will extend to i
the entire Territory.
The traps in Chignik Lagoon are placed in such a manner that then*
is virtually no escapement of fish except during the Sunday closed season.
Tn 1919, the year fn which the 1923 salmon supply wa3 spawned,
the entire park of the Chignik Bay earners, using the same number of
(traps as usual, was 99,677'eases, or an average of 33,226 cases to eac^
With a record of the catch and with knowledge-of the very small es
capement in 1919. the Department of Commerce deliberately p.i/aits the
Chignik packers to prepare to capture more salmon In 192" ;h..n could
possibly be supplied by the e.scapoiuont of 1919. ,
On August 21. 1923. the Chignik packers reallzi d .hat t.. seaaop^
j was a failure and permitted the Department of Commerce t« au or
Jderto Hove down the canneries for the season. This performance was
carried’ out with a noisy demonstration which revorbe rated ia. ?•*«• pr
of tiie Cidtcd States as propaganda of the department to .jiup.r«■ Ihsvpsb
lie with the idea that conservation is tile purpose in gitjugi'W.ay 'the rich,
fisheries of Alaska to the Pish Trust. As a matter .of fact ;h Trust a! ,
j lowed fhe department to "lock the door after the horse was stoler..”
The total escapement aftwr the canneries closed was appr. ximat- 1
100.000 red salmon. Had every ffsh been captured and canned between 1
August 21 and September 15. 1923, it would mean only 100 c.»s. > per du> .
to each cannery, and the Chignik Ray canneries can not o; •.,a:e orr <
small' a quantity of fish.
Shortsighted f’olirj of Fish Trust
: Granting that the representatives of the Departm* .f. -mm.-ref
jure incompetent and childishly impractic I’ble. the qui-.ion . Why ;
should the salmon packers thus deliberately destroy the salmon suppiv ’
I upon which they must depend for future dividends? , The answer is.!
"Just human selfishness." Almost any individual who j ,.es out to hunt
j or lish will kill the last game animal or bird, or catch ihV !.- •ftsh to be
'seen unless restrained by the law. and in Alaska, under Die reservation
j system. ail laws are suspended and the packers dictate the regulations
utuii . which they operate.
“t sniservution” B> Monopoly
in the region west of Chignik only one cannery obtained the amount
a lotted by the department in the season ef 1923, and this happened to be
the one belonging to the. Pacific-Amerlean Fisheries Co., which has been
given monopolistic privileges. The department has decided to allow a
fifty per cent increase in the pack of thi- cannery for th“ season of 1921.
•nd. furth rtnore. has authorized the , a. trai.‘.on qf a new curin', ry |
within the reservation by tiie same company. All this, of course, in the :
'nter :-ts of “conservation." This season's 1923— allotment, and pack, j
in the waters wither© the monopoly is permitted, an increase for next year
is as follows.
T>n.' fie Am. Fisheries. Tkatan, Allotment, 7R.000; Actual pack R2.252. ,
i'acific Am. Fisheries, King Cove, Allotment 100.000; Actual pack 4(i,S'.’.l
Pacific Am. Fisheries. Shuniagin. Allotment 50.000; Actual puck 50,000
P. K. Harris & Co.. False Pass. Allotment 70.000; Actual jiack 42.328
Total allotment 290,000 cases; Actual pack .201,411 j
It will be noted that the cannery of the monopoly :?t King Cove was j
allotted 1 o0.000 cases, but could not obtain half that amount. No re-j
duction is made at King Cove for next season and the Shumacin pack j
is increased 30 per cent and a new cannery at Jacob- Island permitted to
this monopoly. The fact that, several independent fishermen applied
for permits to operate in this section, hud no effect whatever on the l>e-j
partment of Commerce. The monopoly that dictates the department’s I
fisheries lailicy desired to extend its activities., and so through its influ- .
ence and control of the Department of Commerce It compelled small j
Scanners and fishermen to stand aside while it grabbed some more fishing j
waters, and the Department of Commerce informs a gullible public that
^ this is “conservation."
Department s Itepi-eseiitn' ve IVfN of Destruction
1 have presented the facts and figures to prove that no such destruc
tion of the Alaska salmon supply has taken place within the section now]
| in reservation in any one year since the inception of the canning industry, j
While thi- department is engaged in fooling the American reading public;
into believing that the salmon supply fs being conserved, an agent of the
department who acted within the reservation comes right out and tells
tiie truth. 1 herewith insert an extract from the Pacific Fisherman for
October. 1923. containing the statement of Mr. Dennis Winn. Alaska
agent of the Bureau of Fisheries:
“He confirms earlier reports of a very poor run in the Nru<hagak
and Ugashik and a fairly good one in the Kvichak. but attributes the
successful packing season to the fact that weather favorable beyond all
precedent, together with an intermittent run of fish, permitted fishermen
and packers to make the moat of the fish available. As a result he says
the escapement was very poor, the number of fish seen on the spawn
ing beds being apparently less than one-tenth of last year’s spawners
and even less than in 1921."
What more convincing proof thau the statement of Mr. Winn is
required to convince the public that, the “conservation” policy of the De
partment of Commerce is spurious?
Department Asks Congress to Approve the Clear
Now comes the Department of Commerce and asks Congress to con
firm its illegal acts in the Alaska fsheries; to confirm its suspension of
law', it* abrogation. of the common rights o£ fishery, .its denial «>f the right
£. fishery ^0*citizen* who have heretofore exercised that light in Alaskan
waters; to confirm lh** most outrageous grad* of..national rcH&urcet, ever
attempted by selfish, exploiting interests, aided, arid abetted ’by unfaithful
,'ovemiuent officials This confirmation in asked, for in House mil 2? 14
and Senate Bill W ' •
(Sittj'ciKhlh (hninmk. Unt nanliMi;) •
• :.v . .. • IN THE.MOUSE OF* REPRESENTATIVES,
lhx*emb«*r «, I f«i*.
.. Mr. WHITE:’W Silking introduced'the foflowrag bill, which was re
!’*••■ to'the Committee on the More,hunt. Marine and Fisheries an if or
1 • <1 to be printed!:
\ bill i ll. It. 2.7T4'> tb provide t »r the consorvitciop and protection of
fish in Alaskan waters
IV it t>nM(>t<ad' etc.. That for .the purpose* of protecting and conserv
in.' the fs111 i ■ i*s of. the United States in Alaskan waters, until such time
. t‘ojv.r--.- -shall enact general legislation. applicable thereto, the Pteai
if thf* •l.'hited^'States may from' tithe to time set apart and reserve
• lakes, rivers, streams, bays. inlets, estuaries,v or any other bodies of
Wii'.i r w thin or adjacent to thy Territory of Alaska over which the
United States has jurisdiction, and may by public ‘proclamation declare
»h tablisiiment of. snch reserves itr.cf the limits thereof; and Ifom and
t Che date of such proclamation it shall fie unlawful to fish or to op
erate any boats, seines, nets, traps, or other gear or apparatus for the
purpose of taking fish within the limits of any such .reserve, except to the
extent, in the manner, at the time, anil under such rules and regulations
as the President muy from time to time prescribe.’*
Sec. 2. Any person violating any of the provisions of this act shall
be punished by a fine or not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for
not more than one year, or both:”
The purpose of theee measures is to- obtain congressional sanction
of- what? A system of conservation of the Alaskan fish supply?" No,
’ndeed; but for the iui.rpe.se of perpetuating the grab of a great natural
food resource by the Kish Trust.
It will be noted that these measures provide that absolute control
of the waters of Alaska shall lie with the Department of Commerce “until
such time as Congress shall enact general legislation applicable thereto."
Why should Congress enact the ‘‘general’ legislation" at the present time?
»lie answer is mat the Department of Commerce wishes to have, sufficient
time to strengthen the title of the Fisht Trust to the Alaskan fisheries to
such an extent that Congress may hesitate to> revoke it.
Why the Irftws Wore Suspend!*! ami (Hti/^lw Driven Out. of Tfieir Fishery
The. Fish Trust arranged.' a luncheon tor the United States Commis
sioner of Fisheries, Mr. Henry O’Malley, at the Seattle Chamber of Com
merce in September. 1922. jrrst at tlfce close of the packing season. The
Trust had selected-Mr. O’Malley for the office he holds and in return Mr.
O’Malley delivered the fishing grounds of Alaska over to the Trust. At
this banquet, while surrounded by his masters, the Commissioner of Fish
eries told them just why he had; abrogated all public rights or fishery
iix the interests of the trust in tine following language:
“In regulating- the fisheries the bureau had three possible course
of action: First, to stand by while the fish were destroyed; second, to.
grant permits to all corners, with general restrictions to protect the fish,
which would result in operators being reduced to a point of financial dis
aster; third, to- restrict the number of operators, as well as to the areas
fished, and amount of gear used, sea so nur ■ >!' fishing, etc.”
And thus iu determining to apply the second method mentioned,,
which is the method cmniM»Iled by law. by all court decisions, and by
out constitutional guaranty of equal opportunity, an insurmountable ©b
I stacle arose, namely, the investment, ami so the commissioner set aside
| all human rights, anil derided in favor of the investment.
We wonder just how long this autocratic- arrogance on the part of
bureau chiefs is to continue and how long Congress is going to tolerate
this usurpation of powers which are delegated only to parliamentary
Hnpmnc Court on lh-paremoiit's Action
l herewith submit the opinion of the Supreme Court of the- United
States on this subject as expressed by Mr. Justice Matthews in the case,
of Wick vs. Hopkins (IIS V. S. 350):
"When we consider the nature and theory of our institutions of gov-,
eminent, the principles upon which they are supposed to rest, and re
view the history of this development, we are constrained to conclude that
they do not mean to leave, room for the play and action of purely per-.
*nnal and arbitrary power. • * * * For the very idea that one may
be compelled to hold his life or the means of living, or any material right
essential to the enjoyment of life at the mere will of another seems to
be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails as bring the Rssoneo
of slavery Itself,"