seems to have been a “strict in
terpretation of the law” from
his point of view, based on con
siderable experience with ques
tions arising over the laws of
fishing.
It will be noted in the Han
sen-Thayer s t a t e m e n t that
“Warden Pryde was thereupon
taking steps to take the case to
Juneau.” Pryde went to Ju
neau and returned to Yakutat
in the Spring of 1928 “more de
termined than ever that we re
sidents should not take food
fish out of Ankow Inlet.”,” and
“Warden Pryde says he has the
District Attorney. Mr. Harding
supporting him in this move.”
This statement regarding the
District Attorney is borne out
by the fact that the Commis
sioner, Judge Axelson, was later
advised by the United States At
torney Harding that he (the
United States Commissioner)
should co-operate with the Bu
reau of Fisheries and was vir
tually informed by the District
Attorney that he (the Commis
sioner) was not properly per
forming his duty. This, in my
opinion, is the real serious feat
ure of this whole controversy
regarding the Yakutat fisheries.
A United States Commission
er with years of experience in
fishery matters, a man of ex
cellent character, whose integ
rity has never been questioned
in his official capacity, passes
upon a provision of the law that
I do not believe has ever been
construed by the District Court
in Alaska, is reprimanded by
the United States Attorney for
not conforming to the interpre
tation placed upon the law by
Mike Karussos and Harrv Pryde.
Surely, the Commisioncr’s fail
ure to cooperate with the Bu
reau of Fisheries must mean
that his judicial decisions were
not rendered in accordance with
the wishes of the Bureau’s
warden and watchman.
If a condition such as this
suggests, whereby the Bureau of
Fisheries is going to dominate
the U. S. Attorneys and they in
turn are going to coerce the
■United States Commissioners in
to interpretation of the law in
a manner at variance with their
honest opinion, the obvious
thing to be done is to merge
the administrative into the ju
dicial branch and permit the
Bureau of Fisheries to file com
plaints regarding illegal fish
ing with the Burt an of Fisher
ies, and then the Bureau of
Fisheries will sit in judgment
and fix the penalties. No doubt
there would arise serious ob
jections to such procedure in
law. but it does not greatly ex
aggerate in describing the pre
sent situation with regard to
administration of the fishery
laws in Alaska.
It certainly should not, under
our system of government by
law, lie within the province of
agents of the Bureau of Fisher
ies, or even U. S. Attorneys, to
interpret the laws. That is sup
posed to be strictly a function
of District Courts and Commis
sioners, and there is supposed to
be no room for suspension oi
this function by your Bureau or
any other administrative or
ganization.
Your letter quotes Mr. Winn
as saying: “Mr. Axolson (U. S.
Commissioner at Yakutat) was
advised that the strict interpre
tation of the law here, as well
as elsewhere would be enforced.”
This prompts me to call your
attention, as well as that of Mr.
Winn and your agents at Yaku
tat, to the fact that at least
90 per cent of the lish taken in
the Yakutat region are taken
under illegal conditions- and
that if your Bureau would in
terpret the 1 aw strictly there
would be many less fish taken
from those waters.
There is not n stream flowing
into the Pacific, South of Yaku
tat Bay to Cape Fairweather,
the section from which most of
the Yakutat supplyis taken,
where fishing is conducted un
der strict or even moderate in
terpretation of the law. Section
4 of the Act of 1924, which you
quote, provides that all streams
shall be closed to a distance of
five hundred yards from their
mouths.
I quote below what may be
considered a “strict interpreta
tion of the law” with regard to
what constitutes the mouth of
a stream. This is the interpre
tation of the United States Dis
trict Court of Alaska, and pre
sumably it is the law:
“DEFINING THE MOUTH OF
A STREAM”
“Opinion of Hon. T. M. Reed,
.Fudge of the First Division of
Alaska, in the case of U. S. vs.
Tamarac, January, 1924.
"The law was given by Judge
Thomas Reed as follows:”
“The fourth question and the
principal question in this case is
whether he took salmon by
means of a seine within live
hundred yards of the mouth of
the stream then flowing into
Salmon Bav.”
“Now. taking up the fourth
question, I charge you that the
mouth of a stream is where its
waters meet the line of mean
low title. Now, by mean low tide
is meant the ordinary low tide;
that is, the average tide. You
all know that the tides vary, but
the line of mean low tide is the
line of the average low tide, and
where the waters of the stream,
whether they are brackish or
wind her they are pure, meet the
bne of flic mean low tide, that
is the mouth of the stream. Of
course, you as well as I, know
that often a stream flows thru
what is known as tide lands or
what is known as tide lands and
the waters of the stream may
become brackish from the salt