land can bo treated by govern
ment.
This land-tenure system ex
tended to America by the Euro
oean sovereigns of our colonia1
Jays and under some modifica
tions adopted by the United
States at its inception has, I be
lieve, been one of the basic rea
sons for our great national pros
perity and tranquility and hap
piness and contentment of our
people.
Water Tenure
Rights of tenure in tidal wa
ters has never been recognized
as a fixed national policy at any
rime in history. To be sure, in
!he remote past, English sover
eigns and princes of the conti
nent did assign to some favorite
certain exclusive privileges on
.idal waters, but with the ad
vancement of human liberty and
establishment of human rights
all such tenure cf tidal waters
was abrogated and the system
abolished. I would call your at
tention to the fact that a sec -
lion of Magna Charta is devot
ed to abrogation of these privi
’eges. set un by British Sover
eigns. Ancient Roman law clear
ly recognizod the public rights
in all oceans and arms of oceans
and in the estuaries of rivers.
So did the later laws of Englan 1
and of all Furopean countries.
All decisions of American courts
have been adverse to those who
set up a claim of exclusive privi
lege on tidal waters.
Alaskan Haters
Unfortunately the world re
cognized rights of the public ou
ocean waters and the decisions
of American courts, including
the Supreme Court, defining and
upholding those rights are of no
force and effect in Alaska under
the administration of a Federal
iVareau, and therefore the con
tinued struggle of the masses of
the people to assert this consti
tutional right which is denied
them and the attendant dissen
sion and social discord that Is
always apparent to those who
visit the Territory and which is
particularly apparent to our ap
pointed governors Our govern
ors recognize these effects as an
evil thing in the life of the Ter
ritory, but they feel compelled
to ignore the obvious cause.
To Be More Explicit
When in 1924 Congress pass
ed the act for regulation of the
Alaska fisheries, giving the Se
cretary of Commerce such regu
latory powers as are usuauv
conferred on governmental fish
ery agencies, the report of th
Committce on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries carried a para -
graph to this effect:
Alaska Water Tenure system
At the present time it is the
policy of the Department (Com
merce) as one means of control
of fishing to grant a limited
number of h-hfng permits v-i’i
in any designated area and to
exclude all others from fishing
rights therein. Your committee
has reached the unanimous and
positive opinion that this prac
tice of granting exclusive fish
ing privileges should cease, and
in this section (1) it is declared
that all regulations authorized
to be made shall be of general
application, and that no exclus
ive or several right of fishery
shall be granted, nor shall any
citizen be denied the right to
take fish in waters where fishing
is permitted.
Despite the vigorous language
cf the report from the commi* -
tee and the indorsement thereof
by Congress in the enactment of
an. apparently iron-clad, law
o gainst several or exclusive
fishery rights being granted by
the Secretary of Commerce, the
intent of Congress has been ig
nored by the. Bm-rtment o4"
Commerce and exclusive fishing
privileges have ^een perpetuat
ed and new exc:'^we privileges
established since the passage of
the act of 1924.
Statistical Proof
In three years from the data
of the act of Congress the De
partment of Commerce had in -
creased the number of exclusive
fishing privileges in southeastern
Alaska a!rne from 32G to 575, or
r;n increase of 249. This in the
face of the statutory declare, -
Mon that exclusive rights should
not be granted. In the three
years mentioned the catch of
salmon by the exclusive-right
Ashing method was increased
from 57 per cent to 73 per cent
of the total catch, while the
catch by universal method was
decreased from 38 per cent to 1C
per cent of the total catch. In
other words the fishing popula
tion of the southeastern coast
of Alaska was deprived of over
one-half of the fish they wev~
accustomed to take annually,
and that half was largely grant
ed to non-residents operating
under exclusive fishing right j
given to them by the Depart
ment of Commerce
Karluk River
Among the nnny instances of
exclusive fishing privileges es
tablished by the then Secretarv
of Commerce that were called
to the attention of the Commit
tee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries while the fisheries law
was under consideration in 1924,
I believe the Karluk River fish
ery case was one of the most
convincing examples of abroga -
tion of public rights that came
to the attention of the commit
tee. I believe that this case of
absolute disregard for public
lights in fishery prompted the
vigorous language of the report.
Your committee has reache .1
the unanimous and positive con
clusion that this practice y£
granting exclusive fishing privi
leges should cease.
. .Did this exclusive fishery
cease with the enactment of th^
aw? No, on the contrary, the
Secretary of Commerce hao
i maintained and perpetuated