plant in an effort to justify the inspectors’ continued
existence, and taxes would have been increased to such
an extent without question many companies would
have been forced out of business and millions of dol
lars’ worth of property confiscated.”
It was expected that the cost of the inspection bill
would be $20,000 per year covering products valued at
40 million dollars. The situation would not have
been different than the fruit and other packers in and
aiound Seattle, the home of Mr. Allen; and further
the packers had a part in writing the bill requiring
inspectors.
Regarding the “increased cost” and the “taxes,”
not a single company objected to the bill on that ground.
Certainly Mr. Allen did not. His statement about con
fiscation is the usual “bunk” that has been fed to the
cannery corporations by their lawyers who do this to
make themselves appreciated. T am sorry to say that
his clients believe him. perhaps because they trust
him.
The worst enemies the cannery system have in Al
aska are the class of lawyers engaged by them both
in Alaska and in Seattle. Edward W. Allen is typical.
This type sell not only their talent for a fee. but they
also sell their conscience.
SOME MORE OF EDWARD U. ALLEN
CANNERY LAWYER
Mr. Allen says; “The charges launched against the
fish companies were principally the following; 1. That
outside capital reaped the benefit of Alaska fisheries
without any contribution to the local welfare.”
This is a dishonest statement. No one has ever said
that outside capital has reaped benefits in Alaska
fisheries without ANY contribution. This statement is
typical of Mr. Allen.
“2. That the continued used of fish traps would
exhaust the salmon run ”
No fisherman denies this statement except those
who fish in the Colman Building, Seattle. The ex
perience of last summer is another proof of what trap
fishing will do.
“3. That the use of traps was putting the local
fishermen out of business and preventing them from
earning a livelihood.”
^ Even cannerymen admit this. Canneries like the
Sunnypoint Packing Company openly state that they
do not want seiners. What limited use they have for
seiners is only for insurance against the failure of
their traps. i
“5. That the use of reduction plants was depleting
the supply of herring.’’
The business men of Alaska are now convinced that
this is true. The next legislature will undoubtedly put
this class of plants out of business. The herring are
being depleted. Halibut boats were tied up for days
at a time on account of the shortage of herring. Some
of them finally got bait from Canada.
But Mr. Allen went cn and said; “Yet in most in
stances complete answers were right at hand. The
proofs were ready but no one troubled to produce
them.”
Legislation Was Defeated.
rl he proposal to tax herring fertilizer one cent a
pound, and herring oil $2 a barrel was defeated by
a vote of 8 to 8. This measure would have stopped
the wholesale use of herring for fertilizer.
Sumner Smith of Anchorage voted with the real A1
askans on this measure, while Ben Grier, also of
Anchorage, voted with the Seattle cannery interests
and his vote defeated the measure.
The vote was as follows;
For the tax to protect our halibut and troller fleet—
1st Division, Benjamin, Ferguson, Paul, Worth; 2nd
Division, Sundquist; 3rd Division, Sumner S. Smith,
4<h Division, Johnston. Ross.
Against our halibut and troller fleet and in favor
of the use of herring for fertilizer—
D-d Division—NONE; 2nd Division, Tom Gaffney,
Rydeen, Lomen; 3rd Division, Tom Scott, Ben Grier,
.loo Murray; 4th Division, Walter Fisher, Robert
Sheldon.
GETTING RELIGION
We preach a gospel of economic salvation.
(H necessity we denounce the waste and destruction
of our great resources.
W e denounce the Bureau of Fisheries, Pharisees and
hypocrites who pretend to conserve our salmon while
permitting the non-resident canneries and trapmen to
skim the milk, with the result that the salmon are
being destroyed and the population with it.
More than two years ago, we denounced the use of
herring for fertilizer. At that time, the fertilizer
plants were only using ONE MILLION pounds of her
ring per day for fertilizer. We were called radicals,
against capital, and other names. But we persisted be
cause we had the facts with us. ■
Today, the Ketchikan Chronicle, the inspired mouth
piece of big business around Ketchikan, aroused by
the revelations made by Senator J. R. Heckman, has
joined us radicals and is denouncing the use of her
ring for fertilizer.
We reprint the editorial taken from its issue of
October 3rd, and remark that we rejoice when a
sinner repenteth, and predict that the Chronicle will
sometime denounce fish-traps.
The editorial follows:
JUNEAU AND HERRING SITUATION
Business men of Juneau who paid no attention to