supported by time.
I will not go into previous his
tory except to say that I predict
ed the causes and resultant de
pletion of our fisheries as early
as 1904. This was my conclusion
after watching the efficiency of
the fishtrap at Anan Creek.
While we watched that famous
creek dying, we protested to the
Bureau of Fisheries, but nothing
was done until the annual catch
was virtually nil, having drop
ped from an annuel catching of
1.000,000.
In 1922 Secretary Hoover cre
ated his fish reserve system in
the identical language recom
mended by the Alaska Packers’
Association as shown by their
published minutes. During the
intervening period, (1906-1922)
the Bureau of Fisheries never
recommended a fishery bill for
Alaska although it gave its ac
tive support to bills which were
written by the attorneys for the
big packers; of these the infa
mous Alexander Fish Bill is typ
ical. These bills had in common
the recognition of title to fish
trap sites and the prohibition of
fishing by any gear whatsoever
within a certain distance, usual
ly one mile, laterally from the
fishtrap. Any fair-minded citi
zen can see where the Bureau of
Fisheries stood.
Since the principal credit for
the conservation of our fisheries
goes to Mr. Hoover because of his
reservation orders, let me say
that we opposed these orders for
two reasons, first, all the permits
to fish (with one or two excep
tions) were given to the author
ized canneries of each reserved
district, and individuals were ob
liged to petition each cannery
superintendent for their right
to fish, which right could be re
tained only on sufferance from
that cannery superintendent. I
told Mr. Hoover that we objected
to that as being unAmerican and
that it put us at the mercy of
these canneries, virtually a sys
tem of peonage.
These reserves were clearly il
legal for there is no power in the
Secretary of Commerce or any
body else to parcel out the wa
ters of Alaska; the so-called au
thorization was founded on the
law of 1910 ratifying the timber
and coal reserve order of Presi
dent Roosevelt, and related to
lands, not water.
Our second objection was this
—while Mr. O’Malley created the
reserves with the sanction of Mr.
Hoover ostensibly in the interests
of conservation, the permits
issued to the preferred canner
ies were far in excess pack of
these same canneries even in
their best years. Delegate Suth
erland In his speech of February
2, 1924, where lie showed that the
tota lpack for t he Cook Inlet dis
for the Cook Inlet district au
trict authorized by Mr. O’Mellev
was 208.000 cases, and the actual
pack was 88,937.
These reserves were created
to “conserve fish,' said O'Malley,
and by executive action because
there was no “adequate law,” the
necessity being urgent because
“depletion was already far ad
vanced.” And yet. whereas in the
good years of 1916 to 1919, Lib
by, McNeil and Libby at Kenai
had an average pack of 28.432
cases, Mr. O'Malley in the name
of Mr. Hoover gave this company
a permit to pack 40.000 cases in
1922. It actually packed 14,611
that year.
I nad long supported a bill be
fore Congress giving the Depart
ment of Commerce full power to
handle the situation. Although
O’Malley would commend my
proposals privately lie refused to
assist in passing the bill because
he said his department was an
executive department and not a
legislative department. But that
did not prevent his department
from causing a bill to be introduc
ed legalizing the reserve system.
The Bureau wants the power to
say who shall fish and where. Our
proposals agreed with theirs in
everything except that point;
for to submit there was to sur
render our right to live in Alas
ka into the keeping of a despot
with the usual result that his
tory shows accompanies all des
potisms.
You say that “about 1924 it be
gan to be borne in on more and
more people that something
would have to be done about it.
The realization existed at first
in the minds of a few conserva
tionists, but the impression
spread among the public at large
and was increasingly entertain
ed by more enlightened cannery
men.
You would do well to read my
speech before the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries
of January 17, 1922, on H. R.
2394 which would enlighten you
on the situation that had devel
oped three years prior to your
elate of 1924. In that speech I
made historical proof of the
facts of depletion which up to
that time had been denied by
the Bureau of Fisheries, who at
tempted to prove their conten
tion by citing the fact that the
total pack was either increasing
or remaining stationary. If you
are going to write more on fish
eries you should get that docu
ment because it has withstood all
the assaults of the Bureau of
Fisheries and their allies, the
big packers Except for addition
al facts, my conclusions publish
ed therein remain the same.
The White Fish Law was op
posed most bitterly by Mr. Hoov
er and Mr. O'Malley because they
wanted the blanket power to say
who should fish, where and when
they should fish, a power which
they had already usurped under
their reserve system and had al
ready abused. (See hearing on
H. R. 2714 of Jan. 31, Feb. 1, 6, 7,
and 8, of 1924).