LO! THE POOR CANNERYMAN!
The woes and ills of the poor can
neryman are well set forth in the
editorial of the Alaska Weekly of
December 14th last.
Here are some of the woes of the
cannery men listed by that writer:
1. Senator King of Utah has in
troduced a resolution calling for a
Senatorial investigation of a “sup
posed Fish Trust”.
2. Dan Sutherland is “bringing
suit against Herbert Hoover to test
the validity of his reservation rul
ings.”
3. The Department of Justice
“shortly after the first of the year
will start a series of suits prosecut
ing certain of the cannerymen in
connection with war-time deals.”
4. “Test-suits are under way, in
the name of the Territory of Alas
ka, in an effort to collect what the
cannerymen claim is a confiscatory
territory tax.”
5. “Thirty-three packers are fac
ing prosecution at Ketchikan for vio
lation of the recently enacted closed
season law.”
Taking the woes in order, we must
suppose first that if there is a Fish
Trust, Senator King has no business
ir. asking Congress to inquire into
it.
2. The Delegate has no right to
ask the courts to decide whether or
not Herbert Hoover has any right
in law to create the fishery reserves.
3. The Department of Justice
ought to forget frauds committed in
war-time.
4. Alaska should not try to col
lect any tax that the cannerymen
consider confiscatory.
5. The thirty-three packers should
be permitted to violate any closed
season law they have a mind to.
We think these inferences are fair
and not a bit strained. The Alaska
Weekly says. “Is it possible that
the cannerymen of Alaska have no
defense to offer? If they have a
legitimate reason for existence—if
they believe in themselves and their
value to society, then we should con
sider it high time that they under
took to put their side of the ques
tion before the final court of appeal,
the public, in aggressive, determined
style.”
Those who are familiar with the
average canneryman in Alaska, will
realize from that editorial that the
Seattle writer is entirely ignorant of
his subject.
1. The facts easily ascertained in
respect to the above is that there
is a fish trust, that they have meet
ings, or understandings, that this
trust controls the price paid for sal
mon, and general policies, and that
this fish trust not only got Mr.
Hoover to create the reserves, but
to create them according to the ex
act lines of gear and territory as
determined on at their San Francisco
meeting, and that Mr. Hoover gave
the members of the trust permission
to pack more cases under his con
servation (?) reserve than these
same canneries had ever packed be
fore.
2. Mr. Sutherland has a perfect
right to ask the courts to determine
the legality of Mr. Hoover’s act.
3. The prosecution of cannerymen
grew out of the sale by the accused
cannery men for the use of the “boys
in France” over eight hundred thous
and cans of putrid fish at a price
named by the cannerymen themselves.
4. The tax now called confiscatory
was determined at Juneau after ex
tensive hearings and accepted by
the cannerymen’s representatives at
that time.
5. It is common knowledge that
the Packers are habitual violators of
all closed season laws; also that they
pay a bonus to many of their em
ployees for fish caught on Sunday;
and that they furnish the bail and
counsel to their employees when
caught violating the law.
And yet, the canneryman and his
lawyers make the laws governing
our fisheries; they appoint the offi
cers who have charge of law enforce
ment; they remove any officer who
gets too independent; they resent any
inspection or control of “their busi
ness; they send out their crews to
catch fish unlawfully; they take fish
from their own traps when caught
on Sundays; they place their traps
across fish streams in violation of
law, and then find “respectable”
papers and lawyers to defend them.
There are a few exceptions to the
above class of cannerymen; a very
few. We made the above charges
before the cannerymen in 1921 at the
Seattle hearing and dared them to
question us for we promised that if
they did, we would name the names,
and some of them were sitting in the
same room.
No questions were asked.
A SUITABLE FISHERIES BILL
REQUESTED BY HERBERT
HOOVER
When Governor Bone addressed
the last legislature, he said in part:
“I am authorized by Secretary Hoov
er to say the department of Com
merce will welcome a measure pre
pared here for the protection of the
fisheries, safeguarding the interests
of the Territory, the rights of all
Alaskans and fair to those with in
vestments in the industry. If any
committee or the entire Legislature
will prepare such a measure, I can
promise you the support of Secre
tary Hoover and the Administration.”
The legislature prepared such a
bill, adopted it and sent it in with a
memorial to Congress. This bill
has now been submitted to Congress
by Delegate Dan Sutherland. But to
date we have not heard that Mr.
Hoover, the Bureau of Fisheries, or
Governor Bone say one word in sup
port thereof, although all of these
parties are loudly demanding that
the new White bill legalizing the
Hoover reserves be passed “pending
the adoption of adequate laws by
Congress.” After this is done, these
same men will do their best to block
the passage of any real law dealing
with the subject, just as they did
during the past two years.
The thing the Fish Trust wants,
the thing these parties are also work
ing for, is the Reserve System. As
long as no further fishery legisla
tion is passed, just so long will we
have the Reserve System, so they
say.
The public is deceived into think
ing that the Reserves are mere tem
porary devices to save the fish, for
the public does not know that the
power of the administration of Mr.
Hoover is set against the passage of
any adequate law.
DR. L. P. DAWES
Physician and Surgeon
First National Bank
Building
Phone 2602 Juneau
DR. W.A. BORLAND
Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat
Specialist
JUNEAU, ALASKA