The Proposed Trap Leasehold Bill Which is Alleged to
Be a Betrayal of Trust by Wickersham-Paul
Democrat George Grigsby is
running around the Territory
charging that Republican Judge
Wickersham received $8,000 and
Republican William L. Paul re
ceived $6,000 for drafting the
trap leasehold bill and thereby
betraying the confidence of the
fishermen who voted to elect
them to office as Delegate to
Congress and to the Territorial
legislature, respectively.
Judge Wickersham has ex
plained satisfactorily to the
public his part in drafting the
bill which was published in The
Alaska Fisherman, January 1928
along with his explanatory let
ter in which he asks the public
to give an expression on the sub
ject. Where was George Grigsby
or his cohorts at this time that
they did not state their objec
tions Certainly they knew that
it was published and that it
would be presented to Congress
for consideration Why was the
proposed bill alright at that
time and all wrong when elec
tions came around? Was it be
cause the canneries had contri
buted too largely to the cam
paign of the Democratic candi
dates in 1928 thereby closing
their mouths to any objections
and later it meets with opposi
tion because the canners refuse
to be so generous? What is there
wrong about that proposed
leasehold bill? Why is Grigsby
so quiet about the terms of the
bill and why does he only raise
a wrathy voice in generalities?
Dare he take the bill paragraph
by paragraph? He dares not for
it will belie his vociferous ob
jections and show that he is
without honor in making allega
tions of betrayal against Judge
Wickersham and William PauL
We herewith reprint Judge
Wickersham’s letter and the
proposed leasehold bill and ask
the serious consideration of this
by every voter:
“Reprinted from Alaska Fisher
man for January 1928.”
WICKERSHAM OFFERS DRAFT
NEW FISHERIES LAW
x
iLaitor AiasKa r-lsnermau.
Nature and Dan Sutherland
and William L. Paul and Henry
O’Malley, sometimes acting to
gether and sometimes not, have
finally won a partial victory for
conservation in the fight to pro
tect and preserve the fisheries
of Alaska. The Act of Congress
of June 18, 1926, together with
the new Rules and Regulations
of December 12, 1927, make a
step in the right direction, and
recognize for the first time the
rights of the resident Alaska
fishermen.
There is still, however, the
fight between the trap owners.
Those who have lost trap sites
are said to be planning to ‘jump’
some of the best sites remain
ing by getting on the ground
first. The War Department has
issued Rules and Regulations to
remedy the situation brought
about by Judge Reed’s decision
that the first man on the ground
will hold it, though what au
thority the War Department has
over the fisheries in Alaska is
not understood. The trap men
contend that so long as their
business is recognized as legal by
the law, they ought to be entitl
ed to protection from other trap
men. The whole matter has now
resolved itself into a scrap be
tween the trap men. The only
interest left for the public in
the matter is to protect the trap
sites so that no private title can
be obtained by any of the trap
men to these advantageous fish
ing stations. It is to the public
interest that there shall be no
private title acquired by any trap
owner to the sites which cannot
be shaken off promptly if ne
cessary to protect the fisheries
irom destruction.
It would be far better if the
Territorial Legislature had con
trol of the situation, but it has
not. The trap sites are a “no
man’s land” between the con
tending trap men, and the
strongest of them controls. FOR
ihe preservation of the public
rigkt, to prevent private title, to
preserve order between the war
ring trap men, to compel them
to pay a license fee and to re
cognize the rights of the public,
it is necessary to amend the law
to that extent.
In view of this chaotic situa
tion and at the suggestion of
the friends of the Alaskan fish
eries, the following draft of a
tentative bill has been prepared
and is sent you herewith with
the request that it be printed
in your paper for general in
formation. If the reader has any
suggestion either in opposition
to the general idea in the pro
posed bill as a whole, or eff
amendment which will better
protect the public interest in
Alaska fisheries, let them be
heard, so the suggested bill may
be further amended to protect
the interest of the public if ne
cessary.
(Signed) James Wickersham).
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 8
OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF
JUNE 6, 1924 ENTITLED “AN
ACT FOR THE PROTEC
TION OF THE FISHER