took place.
“Mr. Hardy. When one lo
cates a pound net some one
else can locate right on top of
it, can he not?
“Mr. Wickersham. Oh, no.
“Mr. Hardy. Why not?
“Mr. Wickersham. Because of
the law of possession. There is
now no conflict among these
people. Indeed there is so lit
tle conflict among them that
that sort of litigation would
not keep one lawyer alive.
***Mr. Wickersham. Theoreti
cally, yes; but as a practical
law, no. We settled all those
questions in the West long ago.
Our mining claims, town sites,
and even our land claims on
unsurveyed lands are now well
understood and settled. The
right of possession is as well
respected there as any law on
the statue books.
“Mr. Hardy. Out on the
Ocean?
“Mr. Wickersham. Out on
the ocean or anywhere else.
This is not on the ocean. This
is on the tidelands, and when
MEN GO THERE AND LOCATE
THEIR TRAPS AND TRAP
SITES THEIR RIGHTS ARE
RESPECTED AND SECURED
BY THE ACTION OP THE
COURTS. SO THERE IS NO
QUESTION OP THAT KIND.”
In giving this opinion, it
seems now that I was mistaken,
for Judge Brown and at least
one other district judge in Alas
ka, have rendered the decision
above recited, thus revising my
views of the law. The question,
however, has not been passed on
by the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals, and is yet an
open one.
The Substitute BUI of 1916
Again
Since the Brown decision had
upset the half century custom
of the trap men in Alaska, and
introduced “jumping” and liti
gation in its place, the cannery
interests naturally sought a way
out of the dilema which, threat
ened many of them with finan
cial ruin. I was consulted by
one of the most prominent men
interested in the question and
was asked to prepare a bill that
should protect both the public
and private interests, if it could
be done. I agreed to do that,
and being employed I drew a
bill embodying the very plan
which I suggested to the Com
mittee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries and to the House of
Representatives in 1916.
Herewith I enclose for your in
formation, copy of bill drawn by
me. It was submitted by me to
Mr. Paul, who has taken, as you
know, a very great interest in
fishery legislation for Alaska
and it was published in his pa
per, the Alaska Fisherman, on
the January number, 1928, ac
companied by a letter of expla
notion signed by myself. There
after the bill was discussed by
some of the leading cannery
men of Alaska and some minor
changes made in it. It was then
thought by all of us to be in
shape to protect, FIRST, the
public interest, second, the trap
fishermen and cannerymen
from “jumping,” and THIRD, to
bring trap sites and traps under
the same plan of control as that
adopted in the Act of June 6
1924, as amended by the Act of
June 18, 1926.
The Alexander BUI Stffl
Threatens
It is generally assumed, and
possibly the courts will hold,
that no legislation has yet been
enacted by Congress to control
the location and licensing, of
fish trap sites in Alaska—that
this most important of all Alas
kan fishing gear is yet an “out
law” to be constructed catch-as
ean by the first canneryman
who can “grab” the site In the
spring. Conceding that the sit
uation, how long will it be be
fore another effort will be made
japuBxaiv jamouB joao ^nd o*
Bill? Who will be the Delegate,
to Congress from Alaska at that
time, and will the Act be better
or worse than the one now sub
mitted to your consideration?
Certainly every important ele
ment of salmon canning in Alas
ka is now admittedly controlled
by the Bureau of Fisheries under
the Acts of 1924 and 1926 except
ing only traps and trap sites.
Pome bill will pass Congress soon
for their control. Why not pass
a bill which will fully protect the
public interest when it can be
done without danger to those
interests?
Trap sites are now owned and
controlled under the law of pri
or possession and occupancy by
trap fishermen, who acknowl
edge no right to the Bureau of
Fisheries to control or license
them, except the right to pre
vent them from catching fish.
If the bill presented to you
should be enacted into law, the
situation will be far better than
it is now, for then, while the
same trap fishermen may be in
possession of the same trap
sites, that possession will be
limited and controlled by the
provisions of this bill, and the
trap site will no longer be an
outlaw. The possession will be
limited by a short term lease
with such limitations as will en
able the Bureau of Fisheries to
control its use. The owner al
so will pay a reasonable fee for
the fish the trap takes, and
there will also be peace in re
spect to possession. There can
be no loss to the United States
or to the Territory, but a decid
ed gain both in control and in
license fees.
Trap men have owned and
controlled these trap sites for
fifty years, without themselves
being limited or controlled in
their possessory rights. The bill
under discussion will change all
that, in the interest of the pub
lic, and permit public ownership