side and going to the other is
there entangled in trap, and it is
thus impossible for any fish to go
Up the stream to the spawning
grounds.”
“To show the effect of traps
upon the run of fish, we submit
to you that our information shows
tb it in other places where traps
have been in use, a trap will catch
up to 220,000 salmon the 1st year
it is erected and operated, about
200,000 the next year, it will fall
off to less than 50,000 the 3rd year,
and then fall off to not over 10,000
in the following year, all caused by
the inability of the fish to pass them
and spawn.”
Cannery superintendents edmit
that the salmon will be entirely ex
terminated by the present methods,
tut continue to use them (traps)
upon the theory that if they do not
t^ome one else will, and they cannot
be left behind in their efforts or the
means used to secure as large a
pack as possible,”
**“The trap not only catches all
the salmon that get within it, but
leads to waste of vast quantities of
other food fish which cannot be used
in a salmon cannery, and also pre
vents such fish from reaching its
spawning ground.”
Capt. Moser’s report ‘‘Alaska Sal
mon Investigations 1902 p. 201”
pge 29 quote Dr. Jordan.
The problem of the use of traps
in the large streams and their estu
aries is a most difficult one. If we
are to consider the ultimate inter
ests of Alaska and the permanence
of her salmon fisheries, NO TRAPS
SHOULD BE ALLOWED ANY
WHERE THEY ARE THE MOST
HARMFUL WHERE MOST SUC
CESSFUL especially in the flowing
streams.”
Page 22 Dr. Jordan is quoted as
saying “It is evident to anyone ac
quainted with the conditions in Bris
tol Bay that the operation of traps is
in no wise essentional to the profit
able continuance of the industry.”
Capt. Mose further states “Vari
ous traps located as In the lagoon
of the Chignik River, at the month
of West Bay Stream, and elsewhere
have been subject of controversy be
tween salmon inspectors and the can
ners. The Yes Bay trap is plainly
injurious. IT WOULD DOUBTLESS
BE BETTER IF ALL TRAPS, wheth
er fixed or floating, WERE ALTO
GETHER EXCLUDED FROM SAL
MON WATERS.”
Cutting Appropriation
Forest Highway Work
By Will A. Steel
On Feb. 20, 192 6, Delegate Dan
Sutherland was before a hearing ol
the House Committee on Roads,
urging that the forest highway con
..Li uuiuu appropriation in AiasKa
be not cut from the present sum
of $450,000 per annum to $200,000
He told the committee that one ol
the great handicaps under which
we labor is because “The Terri
tory of Alaska has no Senator or
Representative here with a vote,”
.and for that reason Congressmen
find it easy to urge economy in
government expenditures in the
north. This brought forth the fol
lowing colloquy before the Com
mittee:
Mr. Hurspeth. I deeply sym
pathize with you and the people
of Alaska in handling this pro
blem, but can you not levy an as
sessment in the way of taxes
against the big canning interests
and packing interests, so as tc
make them cooperate and help you
out in this matter of providing
the roads?
Mr. Sutherland. If we do that
there is at once a howl raised all
over the United States about dis
couraging the investment of cap
ital in the Territory of Alaska.
Mr. Hudspeth. Do you think
there would be?
Mr. Sutherland. Yes, sir. Lei
me tell you this: The copper in
terests of Alaska last year paid
$41,000 in taxes, and they were
protesting against it. I believe
that if the same taxes that are
► levied in the States of Arizona
were levied on the copper interests
in Alaska, or on the copper pro
duction of Aalska, they would pay
in yearly revenue to the Territory
about $460,000.
Mr. Hudspeth. They are there
and have already established their
business there, and why could you
not levy an assessment against
them in the way of taxes?
Mr. Sutherland. We could levy
it, but there would be a protest
that woudl reach Washington.
Mr. Hudspeth. Do you think it
would be effective? Of course al
ways when you levy an assessment
against the wealthy there is a
protest.
ouiiici ictnu.
X CO, Oil ,
in the Territory of Alaska that
cry is immediately raised that we
are discouraging capital, and that
disheartens the legislators so that
they do not dare assess them. We
levy a tax on the fisheries, and it
is a very reasonable tax, but in
every case of the slighest increase
they carry it to the courts and to
the Supreme Court of the United
State to get an adjudication of the
power given the Territory under
the organic act.
Mr. Hudspeth. We are levying
a pretty stiff assessment on oil
1 companies in Texas and they are
protesting, but it has not effect.
Mr. Sutherland. But you are a
’ sovereign State and we are a
i Territory ruled by the Federal
' Government.
TVT r*
TT11
iuu u a vc CL 1 Cl "
ritorial legislature.
Mr. Sutherland. Yes, sir; we
. have a Territorial legislature, but
our powers are limited, and we
must be careful in the exercise of
our power to levy taxes. They
are fighting It all the time. I
will not say that I am in favor
of fixing any excessive tax on min
ing in Alaska. It would tend
somewhat to discourage the de
velopment of mining in the Ter
ritory.
Mr. Brand. What is the total
cost of the government of Alaska?