FISH TRIPS OR SET NETS
We took exception to Suther
land’s bill to abolish set nets
along with fish traps. In reply
to our objection Delegate Suther
land wrote us the following letter,
Which is well worth reading by
fishermen.
“To the Alaska Fisherman.
“ You call my attention to the
fact 'that H. R. 5380 if enacted
into law would remove set nets
from the mouth of the Copper
River, and my reply is that they
are already removed by the reg
ulations of the Department of
Commerce, except that fall fishing
with set nets is permitted- Dur
ing the sockeye salmon run, which
is the important fishing, set nets
cannot operate.
‘‘This bill for the abolishment
of fixed fishing gear in the law of
the State of California. Under
the present regulation of the De
partment of Commerce there is
virtually n0 fishing gear, EXCEPT
TRAPS, permitted to operate in
Alaska. Set nets have been elimin
ated in all sections of Alaska,
except on Prince William Sound
and even there such restrictions
have been placed on set nets as
to render them useless.
THERE ARE N'O RESTRICT
IONS ON TRAPS ANYWHERE.
Why should set nets be forbidden
or their efficiency reduced while
traps are permitted full efficiency.
My position is that if traps are
to remain then all other stationary
gear should be permitted- but if
set nets are prohibited then traps
should also be prohibited. If the
efficiency of set nets is to be re
duced ' then the efficiency of traps
should also be reduced.
The removal of set nets at
Copper River, 'Chilkat and Nushag
ak was simply a discrimination
against the small operator which
I PROTESTED AGAINST AS
VIGOROUSLY'AS I COULD.
The Department of Commerce
has not the courage to remove
or reduce the efficiency of the
gear of the big operators.
The bill for the abolishment of
fixed gear was introduced princi
pally to bring this unfair and un
just method of regulating gear
practiced by the Department of
Commerce, to the attention of
the Committee on Merchant Ma
rine and Fisheries- '
Yours sincerely^
(signed) Dan Sutherland
(Continued from Page 6)
brought to your attention in con
nection with other similar reports
and resolutions of civic bodies that
were filed with the sub committee
of the Senate Judiciary Committee
on February 3rd, 1926. These
reports and resolutions set forth
the deplorable conditions that ob
tain in certain sections of Alaska,
viz; Ketchikan and Bristol Bay.
When I presented these reports
and resolutions I had no knowledge
of the contents of the Juneau
report of January 27, 1926, and
therefore did not include Juneau
or any other Alaskan community,
except the two above mentioned,
in presenting records of facts to
the judiciary Committee.
“For the past four years the
Grand Juries at Ketchikan, as well
as some civic bodies have been pro
testing against the lawless condi
tions that exist in that community,
by reason of the inefficiency of the
officials in enforcing the laws.
I hold that the Federal officials
are just as responsible for these
conditions in Ketchikan as are the
municipal officials, and the Grand
Jury recognizes just that situation
when it recommends that vigorous
steps be taken by both Federal
and Municipal officials to abate
these conditions.
On September 4th, 1923, the
Grand Jury sitting at Valdez issued
a report on conditions in the
canneries at Bristol Bay that are
so revolting in its description of
the vice and depravity prevalent
there that the entire report was
never, to my knowledge, published.
This report revealed that vice, de
pi avity, and unspeakable abomina
tions held full sway at the Bristol
Bay canneries, and all this crime
and depravity revolved around the
large traffic in narcotics. The re
port states that there were nar
cotic addicts at all canneries, and
at one cannery there were at least
forty addicts.
During the months of June and
July, 1925, a narcotic agent in
vestigated 'conditions there (and
arrested fifteen Chinese with sup
plies of narcotijs in their poses
sion. They were taken before the
United States Commissioner to be
held for the Grand Jury and he
fixed their bond at $15-00 each.
Upon protest by the narcotic agent
and the United States Attorney
the bonds were raised to $75.00
each. The men never appeared
before the Grand Jury and it
apparently waj never intended
that they should appear. The
bonds were, of course, forfeited,
and doubtless these men will return
to Bristol Bay with a new supply
of drugs next summer. Who will
say that the arm of the Court
at Bristol Bay, as well as the can
nery interests there, did not use
their authority and influence to
render abortive the honest efforts
of the Narcotic Bureati to enforce
the law?
'Some of the lawyer politicians
of Alaska who are straining their
voices in defense of the fair name
of the Territory should bear in
mind that the localities in which
they live have never been under
criticism here in Washington. But
several of those men hold legal
retainers from the interests that
are largely responsible for the
deplorable conditions at Bristol
Bay. How much more effective a
few words of advice to their cli
ents to correct these conditions
would be than seeking the lime
lig'ht in defense of these conditions
under the pretense that law-abid
ing communities have been criti
cised.
During the five years that I
have served in Congress I have
continuously insisted that these
sink-holes of depravity in Alaska
should be cleaned up. It is my
purpose to continue insisting for
the remainder of my term? and if
again elected I shall follow the
same policy until action is taken
by the administrative powers to
correct these conditions.
Sincerely,
Dan Sutherland.