ALASKA FISHERY ACT

MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1944

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Friday, January 21, 1944, in the Commerce Committee hearing room, the Capitol, Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Senators Bilbo (chairman of the subcommittee) Wallgren, and Robertson,

Senator BILBO (chairman of the subcommittee). The committee will come to order. I believe someone from the Department of the Interior is to be heard this morning. If he will come around to the other side of the table and take a seat opposite the committee reporter, we will be glad to hear him.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT J. SLAUGHTER, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator BILBO. Please give your name and position for the purpose of the record.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. For the record, my name is Herbert J. Slaughter. I am Assistant Solicitor, Department of the Interior.

Senator WALLGREN. Mr. Chairman, give me an opportunity to get my papers together.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Shall I proceed?

Senator BILBO. Yes; unless Senator Wallgren wishes to propound some questions.

Senator WALLGREN. I wish to ask some questions. Naturally I feel a very keen interest in this bill. It has been termed the Wallgren bill, and I introduced it, and I hope it may be my bill by the time we get through with it.

Senator BILBO. You may proceed, Senator Wallgren.

Senator WALLGREN. Mr. Slaughter, you wrote this report; did

you not?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. This report was written in my office.

Senator WALLGREN. But my question is: You wrote it; did you

not?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Well, I did the most of the drafting of it. Senator WALLGREN. And you were aware of the fact that on Tuesday last I appeared in the office of the Secretary of the Interior on this subject?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I was aware of that fact. I was not aware of the fact that certain of these amendments that were attached to the

107

7

original draft of the bill as introduced, were sponsored by you. As you will notice, the most of these amendments were included in the list which the Department submitted, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we appreciate very much the suggestions contained in these amendments.

Senator WALLGREN. When I appeared before the Secretary of the Interior we called in Mr. Fortas and the Secretary told him that he thought we ought to have a conference on this bill and iron out any difficulties that might exist. He was advised that these were amendments I had agreed to after conferring with men like Dr. Gabrielson and the Secretary of the Interior. It was pointed out that in the original bill there was the possibility of a vested right being given to someone; that there was the possibility of some things being given away. I had agreed to those changes.

Now, this report comes back, and if we print it in the record along with our report on the bill, if it is reported out, the way this report starts out would indicate to any member of the Senate that I did not know what I was trying to do when I wrote this bill.

After all, this report recommends several amendments I had already included in the draft that you have, Mr. Chairman, and that Senator Burton has, as well as other members of the subcommittee; and, for instance, the draft that Delegate Dimond has. So all these amendments had been presented to them, and Dr. Gabrielson had this copy when he appeared with these other people to have a conference on this bill.

So, as I say, this letter starts off, in the second paragraph, with this language:

Because of the objectionable features of S. 930 in its present formWe were not asking anyone to consider it in that form. And, on top of that, it was not being presented to this subcommittee in that form because I came in with these recommended amendments after talking to people in the Department who would have to administer the bill. In the third paragraph, according to the Secretary:

Substantial need exists for a general revision of the Alaska fishery laws. Numerous significant changes in economic conditions and in fishing practices have occurred since 1924 when the last general statute on this subject was enacted. Furthermore, much fuller information is now available with respect to many of the scientific and practical factors bearing upon the solution of fishery problems. The experience gained through the administration of the present laws has revealed many points at which their clarification, amplification, strengthening, or relaxation, would be desirable.

Now, in what way would you suggest that the conservation laws should be relaxed?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Do you mean specifically?

Senator WALLGREN. Yes; because I think a report like this ought to be specific. This report is going to be made a part of the record, I I take it. It has to go along with the letter, and with anything we have in connection with this bill, and it ought to be specific.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. As a specific relaxation I would point out that S 930 as introduced repeals the existing provision of the Alaska fishery laws, which requires a 36-hour weekly closed period.

Senator ROBERTSON. I did not catch that last part of your statement.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I say, it repeals the existing provision of the Alaska fishery laws, which require a 36-hour period every week during which fishing operations must be closed down.

Senator WALLGREN. If there is any question about any statement of that kind by any man in this room, he will please raise his right hand. [A pause without response.] I would like to get this matter ironed out. I do not want statements made here unless they are ironed out. But you may go ahead.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. As introduced, S. 930 also specifically repeals the existing provisions of the Alaska fishery laws which require that in all cases the Director must permit a 50 percent escapement of salmon. That is, he must allow 50 percent of the salmon run to get up the stream, regardless of what his judgment might be as to the number of salmon it is necessary to get up the stream in order to maintain the runs. Both of these provisions are, I think, fairly to be considered as relaxations of the existing law, and they are relaxations which the Department thoroughly approves.

Senator WALLGREN. I wish to call the subcommittee's attention especially to this third paragraph, wherein the Department agrees there is need for legislation along this line. The Department seems to be in favor of this bill but wants to rewrite it in some particulars. The first point mentioned is jurisdiction over offshore waters. I note that the report states that the bill "does not give due recognition to accepted principles of international fair play," and "is not properly adjusted to the actual extent of the waters over which regulatory controls should be extended."

Now, your report is dated January 21, 1944. That is a day after the hearings started, and it is 9 months after S. 930 was introduced. That is when we finally get a report from the Department of the Interior on my bill. I am struck, however, by the fact that in your proposed amendments you use the exact language I proposed to the committee on Thursday.

Mr. Chairman, they criticize my bill and then come in with this report, and at the same time use the exact language that I use and have written into this bill.

Senator BILBO (chairman of the subcommittee). As I understand it, Senator Wallgren, the Department's report on the bill is on the bill you originally introduced. And it is not on your amended bill, that we are considering.

Senator WALLGREN. Yes; that is the report.

Senator BILBO. We have laid aside S. 930 as originally introduced. We are dealing exclusively here with your bill as amended, but the Department's report is on the original bill and not on this amended bill.

Senator WALLGREN. That is the point I want to make. First, the Department had my bill for 9 months, and Dr. Gabrielson had this сору, and he attended a conference up in the Department of the Interior, where they had this bill, but even then they wrote a report on S. 930 without any mention of the fact that the suggested amendments would remedy the situation. They come in here and write in the very amendments I had written into the original bill.

Senator BILBO. In the report the Department is bringing to us this morning, do they go beyond the amendments you had already suggested?

94737-44- -8

Y

Senator WALLGREN. I have not had time to read this report and make such comparison.

Senator BILBO. It might be that you and the Department are together on this thing.

Senator WALLGREN. This proposed bill and this departmental report includes some of the amendments as already suggested.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is right. That mimeographed draft that you have there shows in strike-out form the amendments.

Senator WALLGREN. I should like to continue my inquiry.

This language in section 2 was submitted to Dr. Gabrielson on Tuesday morning and, as we know, it is all in here, the very recommendations that they make. I notice, however, that you have not agreed with my proposal to include in section 2 the language of the White Act. That is in section 2 of the bill. In the first place, my attention was called to the fact that my original language might have taken away certain aboriginal rights in Alaska, and so this amendment was written to place back in the bill the same language as is contained in the existing law, the White Act. Apparently the Department does not agree with the existing law and the White Act. I notice that you have not agreed with my proposal to include in section 2 the amendment of the White Act, which has been on the books since 1926. Why does the Department want this language omitted?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The reason for that suggestion is, I think, twofold. First, the language of the White Act is, to our way of thinking at least, quite inconsistent with the whole theory upon which the pending revision in S. 930 proceeds. The pending revision, I think you must frankly recognize, proceeds on the ground that fishing is not to be open to all persons; that a limitation is to be set as to the number, the particular class of vessels, or particular class of weirs, or the number of fish traps; and that applicants who come in for this privilege are to be allowed permits and leases for them in accordance with whatever system of priorities the bill as enacted may provide. And that when the total number set by the regulations of permits and leases have been granted, then no more may be granted, and a man, even if he is a citizen of the United States, cannot come in and file notice that he has a permit and a lease, and the numbers of those are to be limited.

Secondly, we feel it is quite inconsistent with the whole fundamental theory of this bill to write into it a provision taken from the White Act, which ran on an entirely different basis, namely, that everyone was to have an equal and common right of fishing so long as they abide by the laws, the open and closed seasons, and the other general regulations as prescribed by the Director.

Senator WALLGREN. Don't you by your regulations, limit the number of boats, limit the amount of fishing? Haven't they been limiting the amount of fishing; haven't they been controlling fishing up to now?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. They have been controlling fishing, but under existing law we have no power to say that John Jones shall have the right to operate a seine boat in a particular area but that Bill Smith shall not have that right.

Senator WALLGREN. The Department has been doing it just the

same.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. No. We have no authority to do it.

Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Slaughter, Dr. Gabrielson made it clear to us that the only possible way they had of conserving the salmon industry was by reducing the number of days of fishing.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is correct. That is under the present law. That is really the only effective control we have.

Senator ROBERTSON. Do I understand that now you wish to change that control by limiting the number of people who may fish?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. That would be the effect of the primary purpose of S. 930 either in its original form or with any of the various amendments proposed. They all center around that fundamental theme. Senator ROBERTSON. With that fundamental, would the man who had been fishing and making his living at that business for many years have a preferential right?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes; he would have a preferential right.

Senator ROBERTSON. If you had to reduce the number of fishermen, or the number of traps or nets, and it makes no difference, because it comes back to the number of fishermen, you would eliminate those who had most recently come to operate in that area, I take it.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Well, not exactly. That is a matter that is covered by section 7 of the bill. The bill as introduced provides a rather rigid standard to be employed. It says that anyone who has fished during any substantial portion of the fishing season in any of the 5 years preceding the publication of the regulations, shall have a priority, and that if there are not enough fishing privileges to go around among all applications who have fished during the preceding years, then an allotment shall be made pro rata.

5

The Department feels that that is a little bit too rigid, and has suggested in its amendments another formula under which the fact of prior fishing during the preceding 5 years would be the first of the basic considerations to be used in allocating permits and leases. But in it are certain other considerations, such as, for example, the necessity of protecting the small substantial fisherman who, if he is cut down on a pro rata basis, would necessarily be cut down to where he could not fish at all. Our proposal would give some leeway for taking into account consideration of such a person as that, although, as in the original draft of S. 930, it provides that the first thing to be considered is whether a man has been fishing 5 years immediately preceding the adoption of the law.

Senator ROBERTSON. Under your amendments, or under the amendments which you have inserted in this bill, who will decide that question?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Under our proposal certain standards are set up to which the regulations must conform. First, the bill requires that there be public hearings on these regulations. As written, the rule requires a public hearing in Seattle.

We also propose that public hearings in Juneau be required, and in addition the Fish and Wildlife Service may hold hearings in other places. In those hearings everyone who is interested in fisheries is entitled to be heard. After the hearings are over, then the Director promulgates a regulation which contains a plan of allocation.

Senator ROBERTSON. By such regulation do you mean the action of the Department becomes final?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. No. The Director of Fish and Wildlife Service promulgates the regulation. That regulation, however, is not necessarily final. Any interested person can appeal from that regulation