Wickersham’s Memorable Fight Against The Infamous
Alexander Fish Bill
One of the great and success
ful battles that Delegate Judge
Wickersham fought for Alaska
was on the afternoon of Decem
ber 13, 1916. It was the occasion
for the consideration—and de
feat—in the House of Represent
atives at Washington, of the
fisheries bill sponsored by chair
man Alexander of the Commit
tee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries.
Nearly an entire session was
devoted to the argument and
consideration of amendments
offered in .committee of the
whole. It was the last chance
the bill had for passage during
that session of Congress, and De
legate Wickersham, with all his
ingenuity and ceaseless energy,
kept the subject alive until in
despair Mr. Alexander made the
following statement:
“It is now about 5 o’clock. It
is evident that the consideration
of this bill cannot be finished to
day, and, of course, if it cannot
be finished today, the chances
are that it cannot passthe House
during this session of Congress.
Under the circumstance I have
no disposition to prolong the
session, although I regard this
legislation as of the utmost im
portance, .and .its merits have
been totally misrepresented on
the floor.. I move that the com
mittee do now rise.”
And the motion was agreed to.
This ended a long and bitter
struggle, as Delegate declared on
the floor of the House, ‘There is
an effort on the part of three
great corporations to get a mon
opoly and control of these fish
eries. They have had their lob
byists here for the past six years
to secure passage of. this bill.
They are anxious to secure its
passage so that they may push
the small canneries out of busi
ness and secure for themselves
its present form they will be able
a monopoly. If this bill passes in
to do that.” At another period
Delegate Wickersham said:
.. “At this time neither the peo
ple of Alaska nor their legisla
ture has any jurisdiction over
the fisheries of Alaska except
the power of levying an addi
tional tax upon the output
there:f. But in the bill now be
fore the House it is proposed to
take away from the .people of
Alaska that right. So if this bill
passed as it is now drawn and
reported favorably to this House,
it wi 1 take away from the people
of /laska and from the Legis
lative every shred of jurisdic
tion over these fisheries. We will
not te able to protect them. We
will not be able to prevent them
from being utterly destroyed.
And I want to impress upon the
House that it is within your jur
isdiction, and your jurisdiction
only, to protect the fisheries of
Alaska from monopoly and de
struction.”
The prohibition in the bill that
would have taken from the Ter
litory the only privilege that
then existed, is contained in Sec
tion 22 as follows:
“That from and after the pass
age of this act the Territory of
Alaska shall not pass any law
that has the effect of repealing,
altering, or amending this act,
nor shall the Territory of Alas
ka impose any license fees or
taxes upon the business herein
before referred to, nor upon the
output thereof, nor upon any
property, real or personal, used
in said business in said Territory,
and any such existing statutes
heretofore enacted by the Terri
tory of Alaska are hereby ex
pressly disapproved.”
The Alexander bill did provide
for a graded tax on canned sal
mon of 6, 5 and 4 cents per case.
There was a further provision
that the license fees and taxes
should go one-third to the Na
tional Treasury, and two-thirds
to the Territory of Alaska. Had
the bill passed, the revenue to
the Territory would hare been
greatly reduced from what it
was then receiving, and much