the commissioner of records,
such map shall constitute full
and complete notice that the
locator has complied with all
the provisions of this Act in
regard to such location and
that such location is owned,
held, occupied and claimed by
the person designated thereon
as claimant. ***FROM and AF
TER THE FILING OF THE
MAP IN THE CASE OF A
POUND NET (trap) or from
and after posting of the num
ber of the license, as above
provided in the case of
stake net or set net , THE
CLAIMANT OF THE FISHING
LOCATION SHOWN ON SUCH
MAP, OR MARKED BY SUCH
NUMBER, HIS HEIR, ADMIN
ISTRATOR, EXECUTORS,
SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS,
SHALL HAVE THE EXCLU
SIVE RIGHT TO HOLD, OC
CUPY, AND FISH IN SUCH
LOCATION, TO RENEW THE
LICENSE THEREOF AND TO
MORTGAGE, SELL, LEASE,
OR TRANSFER THE SAME
DURING THE TIME THAT HE
OR THEY IN OTHER RE
SPECTS SHALL COMPLY
WITH THE LAW RELATING
THERETO.”
After carefully reading even
this part of the bill, I think you
must agree with me that the
Alexander Bill WAS a plan to
give a Congressional perpetual
leasehold title to trap sites in
Alaska, and that I only did my
duty in bringing about its de
feat in the House. I call your
special attention to the proceed
ings in th House of Representa
tives on December 13, 1916, so
that you may discover for your
self the difference between the
Alexander Bill and the bill un
der consideration.
Proposed Substitute for the
Alexander Bill
The bill under consideration
and which Mr. Paul is said to
have approved, is entitled, “An
Act to amend section 8 of the
Act of Congress of June 6, 1924,
entitled ‘An Act for the protec
tion of the fisheries of Alaska,
and for other purposes.” It is
substantially identical with the
one proposed by me in 1916 in
my effort to defeat the Alexan
der Bill, which was only defeated
by the happy accident that the
Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries had only a single
day in which to secure its pas
sage, and failed to do so because
of the many amendments offer
ed by me. Under the House rules,
if it failed (as it did) to pass
that day, it could not be called
again that session of Congress.
I now call your attention to
the efforts made to secure the
adoption of the substitute trap
site leasing bill in 1916, and to
my statement in relation to that
matter on December 13, 1916, as
contained in the House proceed
ings of that day where the fol
lowing colloquy occurred:
“Mr. Reilly. Mr. Chairman,
Will the gentleman yield?
“Mr. Wickersham. Certainly.
“Mr. Reilly. You stated a
few moments ago that there
are no laws at the present
time covering the subject mat
ter of this bill regarding these
locations for fishing.
“Mr. Wickersham. Yes sir.
“Mr. Reilly. What necessity,
if any, is there for new legis
lation along that line?
“Mr. Wickersham. I think
there is necessity for it, and
I PROPOSED IT TO THE
COMMITTEE . THE COMMIT
TEE WANTED TO KNOW
WHAT I WOULD DO, AND I
PROPOSED A LEASING SYS
TEM OF THESE TRAP SITES,
UNDER SUCH PROTECTION
AS OUGHT TO BE IMPOSED,
SO THAT IN FIVE YEARS WE
COULD GO OUT AND RECAP- 1
TURE THEM IF WE DESIRED i
AND CONTROL THEM IN THE 1
MEANTIME, AND THUS PRE
VENT THEM FROM PASSING i
INTO THE HANDS OF ONE i
GREAT PISH TRUST. (Ap
plause) THAT CAN BE DONE.”
Now the point I wish to make
in this last quotation is that in
1916 I favored this identical plan
of leasing these trap sites in
Alaskan waters, and the House
of Representatives agreed with
me. I have favored that plan
ever since, and do now FAVOR
IT.
Possessory Rights in Trap Sites
The old English pound net was
carried into the colonies, and
when salmon canneries were es
tablished in Calfornia and Ore
gon more than a half century
ago, the canners constructed
them there. Traps or pound nets
were constructed in Alaska by
the salmon canners as early as
1878, or more than fifty years
ago. For half a century the right
of the trap owner, who con
structed and used his trap on
Alaskan salmon grounds, was
respected and protected by the
courts under the law which gives
the prior occupant of public
lands the exclusive right thereto
as long as he continues his actu
al use and occupation thereof.
A contest arose between the prior
occupant and a “jumper” in re
cent 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 aban
donment of the trap site, and
that the “jumper” who got oh
the site a few days earlier than
the prior occupant in the spring
was entitled to the legal posses
sion thereof.
Columbia Salmon Co v. Berg,
5 Alaska 538, 541.
Alitak Packing Co. v. Alaska
Packers, 6 Alaska 277.
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