Wickersham On Trap Sites
The cunnerym^n seem to be
in lull control of trap Ues with
out the ale! of any law They
accomplish this by a “gentle
men’s agreement” in which each
agrees to respect the trap loca
tion of the other. Ths “big fel
lows” are bound to respect this
agreement because each one is
sitting on "eggs” ana dares not
move. The "big fellow” keeps
the little fellow in line by his
control of the market. There
are a few cannery owners who
are free lances and who will buy
"pirate” fish, but even those
know that only a small amount
of such buying will be tolerated.
If this practice should become
more general, the party would
be promptly disciplined. Such
a thing occurred in the Ketchi
kan district several years ago.
A second fact regarding fish
traps is now generally recogniz
ed, and that is that independ
ent trapmen are disappearing
just as William L. Paul predict
ed in the legislature for 1927,
and the control of all traps is
passing to about five companies.
This result is inevitable.
As a result of this tendency
(so long as the trap remains a
legal institution) it would seem
best for the public interest that
fish traps be licensed from year
to year and that owners be com
pelled to pay the government
for the privilege—a privilege
given them today. Such a li
cense should, however, reserve
in unmistakable terms the full
right of the government to "re
gulate, restrict, or to prohibit"
the use of traps for fishing sal
mon, and also that the right of
the Territory to tax the fish or
fish caught therein should re
main in full force in effect. It
should also be provided that
whenever the control of the fish
eries shall be turned over to the
Territory, that the Territory
should succeed to all the powers
over her fisheries that are now
exercised by the United States.
We do not follow the Hon.
James Wickersham to his legal
conclusions altogether, but we
recognize that there is danger
that what he affirms is already
true, namely, that sufficient re
cognition has already been giv
en by constituted authority to
put traps and their locations in
the class of “property” and
hence under the protection of
the Constitution. If this is true,
then they could not be abolished
except after compensation.
At any rate, it is a question
that should have serious thot
of the people of Alaska, and for
this reason we are here print
ing a letter to the FISHERMAN
and to Delegate Dan Suther
land by the Hon. James Wick
ersham.—The Editor.
# * *
Juneau, Alaska
January 14, 1029
William L. Paul, Esq.,
Ketchikan, Alaska.
My deai; Sir:
Here\. .'A I enclose for your
information, a copy of a letter
which I sent to Hon. Dan Suth
erland, Delegate to Congress
from Alaska, on November 27,
1928, in relation to the bill about
traps!te locations in Alaska.
Please note that I urged this
identical plan upon the Com
mittees of tlie House of Repre
sentatives and the House itself,
at the time the cannery inter
ests were pushing the Alexander
Bill in 1916, but that I could not
get it adopted at that time.
Your attention is called to this
for I want you to see that it was
not the cannerymen’s idea but
mine. I send you, also, here
with, a copy of the Congression
al Record for December 13, 1916,
and call your attention to pages
289 to 321, where there is con
tained the record of the strug
gle that day to pass the Alex
ander Bill over my opposition.
Your special attention is di
rected to page 304, where I pre
sented this identical matter to
the House of Representatives
that I have now put in the bill
which I want Mr. Sutherland to
present again to Congress. The
Cannery-Trapmen have now
concluded It is better to have
what I wanted them to accept
in 1916 than nothing, hence
their aid now.
I send this letter and copy of
Congressional Record to you for
your information, so you may
understand the bill is not a can
nery bill, but is one I presented
in 1916, and for the further rea
son that after you have careful
ly examined it you will feel en
couraged to assist me in pre
senting it with approval to the
Delegate.
Very truly yours.
(signed) JAMES WICKERSHAM
November 27, 1D2H.
Hon. Dan A .Sutherland,
Room 167 House Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
My* dear Sir:
While in recent attendance
upon the November term of
court at Ketchikan, whence I
have just returned, I was given
the particulars of the charges
made against our mutual friend
William L. Paul, candidate for
the Territorial Legislature, in
relation to his support of the
bill which I drew up last sum
mer providing for leasing sal
mon trap sites on tide lands in
Alaska to trap owners through
the United States Bureau of
Fisheries.
The Purpose of the Alexander
Bill of 1016
I am satisfied if Taul had