themselves selected by the federal
administration. Let it be known
that Congress in its organic act for
Alaska intended that the two gov
ernments in the Territory should bo
separate and distinct, but weak and
spineless legislators have willed
that bureaurocrats over whom the
/»laska people have no control
should select our administrative
officials for us. Is not this a fair
question to ask—Why should Con
gress give the people of Alaska con
trol of fish, or fur game, or game
animals, if our legislatures are go
ing to pass that control right back
to bureaurocrats appointed from
Washington Just as has been don^
in every case in the past? Even the
Attorney General of the Territory
the one elected official in the Terri
tory is placed in charge and com
plete control of federal officials and
he cannot serve the people in any
way without the consent of these
officials.
In this majt|er of relinquishing
the power vested in the people of
Alaska by Congress the recent le
gislature was no weaker than those
of the past. When it came to serv
ing the cannery, copper and trans
portation interests all observers
must agree that they outdid any
former assembly. There were a tew
who gloried in running errands for
• the lobbyists, They were the Gaff
neys, the Lomens, and Jensens and
Rydeens. To bask in the smiles of
cannery owners deemed to be the
great objective of such members.
When several members had placed
themselves in the power of the loby
ists they were treated by these fel
lows as chattels. These lobyists
are paid to get control of legisla
tors and when they secure one they
take pride in exhibiting their con
quest to their employers.
“WAS THIS SENATOR HOWARD”
One senator was showing his
strong stand-in with the fish tra^
interests. He lived with the can
nery and trap men for the greater
part of the aeseion. He had swal
lowed all the tim© worn Induce
ments to support the cannery legis
lative program that have been put
forward since the first legislative
session. Will this senator get any
thing out of his subservience to the
trap men? He will not for just as
soon as the session adjourned he
was entirely forgotten by his
triends. He was their dupe for sixty
days and then they treated him just
as he deserved to be treated. They
used him and then they cast him
aside like an old shoe.
ARTICLE DENOUNCED
BY RALPH LOMEN
Speech <»f April 7, 1927 Considered
Insulting And Lomcn Forced to
Apologize.
FERTILIZER FROM HERRING
By Chas. B. Ferguson
In the annual Report of the Bur
eau of Fisheries for 1910, when
that Bureau was ably managed by
executives who recognised their
responsibilities as trustees of our
fisheries, the question of making
fertilizer from herring was thus
summed up:
“The use of herring in the manu
facture of fertilizer and oil as con
flicting with its use by man directly
as a food and bait fish, and indirect
ly through the dependence of the
valuable king salmon fishery upon
it as food material, gives rise to a
somewhat puzzling question of right
and administrative policy.
The present fisheries law does not
prohibit such use of food fishes, and
there is now one plant, that of the
Alaska Oil & Guano Co., at Killis
noo, in S. E. Alaska, engaged in the
industry. This year this plant
caught 5 9,000 barrels of herring,
with an aggregate weight, roughly
of 11,800,000 lb. Of these all but
130 barrels which were pickled for
use as bait, were converted into
fertilizer and oil.
It is easy to conceive of commer
cial uses to which fishes are put
which take precedent over other
uses with respect to public advan
tage. Thus the manufacture of fer
tilizer and oil from fishes^is a lower
use, inferior to the business of pre
paring food products from fishes, or
even to their use as bait for food
fishes. Thus the menhaden rank*
lower than the herring. Such a
view in part grows out of the fact
that these fertilizer and oil. products,
quite legitimate in themselves, do
not depend entirely on fish for their
i aw material. Furthermore even
fish fertilizer and fish oil do not de
pend upon herring, for various non
edible fishes, as the menhaden, are
available. The general view of a
higher use denoted by the appro
priation of fishes for human food
has widely obtained and is evidenc
ed by various legislation prohibit
ing the lower use where it has con
flicted with the higher. The de
pendence of a highly prized food
fish and a correspondingly valuable
fishery upon another fish as food for
the former, as in the case of the
king salmon upon the herring, may
be classed with the higher uses.
This in fact is one of the most im
portant aspects of the value of the
herring fishery, if not its chief use.
An important food of the kingigalm
on is herring, and as the catching
of king salmon by trolling now
forms one of the most important
and profitable of the fisheries of
S. E. Alaska, no condition that ad
versely affects it in a material de
gree should exist unless by justifica
tion of a paramount right and im
portance.
It IS for the future rather than
the present (this was in 1910) that
it is desirable to take action look
ing toward the end of the use of
herring as the raw material for
fertilizer and oil. It is safe to as
sume that all the uses of the her
ring are destined to increase, and
therefore, at some future time, a
conflict of uses is probably inevit
(Continued on Page Fire)