was carried into the colonies,
and when salmon canneries were
established in California and
Oregon more than a half cen
tury ago, the cannerse con
structed them there. Traps or
pound nets were constructed in
Alaska by the salmon canners
as early as 1873, or more than
fifty years ago. For half a cen
tury the right of tire trap own
er, who constructed and used
his trap on Alaskan salmon
grounds, was respected and pro
tected by the courts under the
law which gives the prior occu
pant of public lands the exclus
ive right thereto as long as he
continues his actual use and oc
cupation thereof. A contest
arose between the prior occu
pant and a "juniper” in recent
years, and Judge Brown, of the
Valdez division held that the
dismantling of the trap in the
fall,.after the fishing season had
lapsed, constituted an abandon
ment of the trap site, and that
the “jumper” who got on the
site a few days earlier than the
prior occupant in the spring was
entitled to the legal possession
thereof.
Columbia Salmon Co. v. Berg,
5 Alaska 538, 541. .
Alitak Packing Co. v. Alaska
These decisions were made
public subsequent to the contest
against the Alexander Bill on
Dec. 13, 1916.
Immediately after the state
ment made by me in that con
test in relation to leasing trap
sites, quoted above, this colloquy
took place:
“Mr. Hardy. When one lo
cates a pound net some one
else can locate right on top of
it, can he not?
“Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no.
“Mr. Hardy. Why not?
“Mr. Wickersham. Because of
the law of possession. There is
now no conflict among these
people. Indeed there is so lit
tle conflict among them that
Packers, 6 Alaska 277.
that sort of litigation would
not keep one lawyer alive.
* * * Mr. Wickersham. Theo
retically, yes; but as a prac
tical law, no. We settled all
those questions in the West
long ago. Our mining claims,
town sites, and even our land
claims on unsurveyed lands
are now well understood and
settled. Hie right of posses
sion is as well respectedthere
as any law on the statute
books.
“Mr. Hardy. Out on the ocean?
“Mr. Wickersham. Out on the
ocean or anywhere else. This
is not on the ocean. This is
on the tidelands, and WHEN
MEN GO THERE AND LO
CATE THEIR TRAPS . AND’
TRAP SITES THEIR RIGHTS
ARE RESPECTED AND SE
CURED BY THE ACTION OP
THE COURTS. SO THERE IS
NO QUESTION OP THAT
KIND.”
In giving this opinion, it
seems now that I was mistaken,
for Judge Brown and at least
one other district judge in Alas
ka, have rendered the decision
above recited, thus revising my
views of the law. The question,
however, has not been passed on
by the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals, and is yet an
open one.
. The Substitute Bill of 1916
Again -
Since the Brown decision had
upset the half century custom
of the trap men in Alaska, and
introduced “jumping” and liti
gation in its place, the cannery
interests naturally sought a way
out of the dilema which threat
ened many of them with finan
cial ruin. I was consulted by
one of the most prominent men
interested in the question and
was asked to prepare a bill
should protect both the public
and private interests, if it could
h* done. I agreed to do that,
and being employed I drew a
bill embodying the very plan
which I suggested to the Com
mittee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries and to the House of
Representatives in 1916.
Herewith I enclose for your in
formation, copy of bill drawn by
me. It was submitted by me to
Mr. Paul, who has taken, as you
know, a very great interest in
fishery legislation for Alaska
and it. was published in his pa
per,, the Alaska Fisherman, on.
the January number, 1926, ac
companied by a letter of expla
nation signed by myself. There
after the bill was discussed by
some of the leading cannery -
men of Alaska and some minor
changes made in it. It was then
thought by all of us to be in
shape to protect, FIRST, the
public interest, second, the tra~*
fishermen and cannerymen
from “jumping”, and THIRD, to
bring trap sites and traps unde
the same plan of control as that
adopted in the Act of June 6.
1924, as amended by the Act of
June 18, 1926.
The Alexander Hill Still
Threatens
It .is generally assumed, and
possibly the courts will hold,
that .no legislation has yet been
enacted by Congress to control
the . location and licensing of
fish trap sites in Alaska—that
this most important of all Alas
kan fishing gear is yet an “out
law” to be constructed catch-as
can by the first canneryman
who can “grab’ the site in the
spring. Conceding that the sit
uation, how long v/ill it be be
fore .another effort will be made
to put. over another Alexander
Bill? Who will be the Delegate
to Congress from Alaska at that
time, and will the Act be bet
ter or worse than the one now
submitted to your considera
tion? Certainly every import
ant element of salmon canning
in Alaska is now admittedly
controlled by the Bureau of
Fisheries, under the Acts of
1S24 and 1926 excepting only
l