to apply to any type of fish, whether game fish or commercial fish, and to any type of fisherman, that is game fisherman or commercial fisherman. There are certain exceptions that pertain to commercial fishermen, but the broad authority in this bill applies to all types of fishermen. Therefore, in order to get the game fish out of this billand they are provided for specifically in the act of July 1, 1943, which amends the Alaska game law-we have attempted to exclude from the operation of this bill all the game fish coming under the operation of the act of July 1. Senator WALLGREN. Well, to reverse that a little bit, the Alaska game law does not say anything about commercial fishing, does it? Mr. SLAUGHTER. The Alaska game law applies to certain specifically named types of fish, plus such other fish as may be determined to be game fish by the Secretary of the Interior. Senator WALLGREN. Well, I want to ask now, Is there anyone here from the industry who cares to speak in behalf of the industry? I think that is all for Mr. Slaughter, as far as I am concerned. Senator BILBO. Mr. Slaughter, we are certainly under obligation to you for coming up here. Mr. SLAUGHTER. I am glad to be of any assistance that I can. STATEMENT OF ERNEST D. CLARK, SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC FISHERIES, SEATTLE, WASH. Senator BILBO. Dr. Clark, will you take this chair here for just a moment? Senator WALLGREN. We are about to conclude the hearings on this bill, Dr. Clark, and I just thought that while there have been representatives of the industry here, that I would like to know just exactly how the industry feels about this bill. I have discussed the bill with them long before it was ever written and known of their interest in the past, but this bill under the proposed amendments is entirely different from what we discussed. To some degree, I think that things have been tightened up considerably for the operators under this bill. Do you speak for the industry? Mr. CLARK. Yes; I can. Senator WALLGREN. What is your position? Mr. CLARK. My name is Ernest D. Clark. I am secretary and treasurer of the Association of Pacific Fisheries, a trade association of salmon canners with headquarters in Seattle. I think on this matter, Mr. Chairman, I can speak as a representative of the Northwest Salmon Canners Association which is an affiliated trade association. Together, these two associations include virtually all the salmoncanning operators in the Territory of Alaska. We have closely followed the course of this hearing and have particularly noted the various amendments which have been suggested to S. 930. I think on behalf of the industry I might say that while S. 930 as amended by Senator Wallgren at this hearing extends an extremely wide scope of administrative authority, we are satisfied with the inclusion of the opportunity for court review in cases of arbitrary administrative action and believe that the bill will result in adequate conservation of the Alaskan fisheries. We are hopeful that it may in addition to strengthening the conservation regulations serve to remedy the present inadequate conditions which have tended to hamper an efficient functioning of the industry and in providing an essential food supply. We feel that with the passage of this legislation that Senator Wallgren will have made a notable contribution which will serve effectively to carry on the conservation principles incorporated in the White Act. Senator BILBO. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Senator WALLGREN. Mr. Chairman, if it is possible, could the committee go into executive session at this time? Senator BILBO. Yes. Is there anyone else to be heard? (There was no response.) Senator WALLGREN. I don't know of anyone else. Senator BILBO. Very well. The committee will go into executive session now. (Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m. the hearing was concluded, and the committee met in executive session.) (The following was submitted for the record.) WASHINGTON, D. C., HEADQUarters of thE Hon. MON C. WALLGREN, SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR WALLGREN: With reference to the discussion before the committee this morning as to the granting of a vested right to the owner of a trapsite in Alaska, I think the following facts should be brought out: Under the Mineral Land Leasing Act, administered by the Interior Department, a 20-year lease is granted under fixed terms and conditions, payments of royalties, and so forth, on oil lands. Under the lease, during the past 25 years, a considerable amount of oil drilling has been done in Alaska. I, myself, was interested in one enterprise at Katalla and another out at Yakataga Beach, a hundred and fifty miles south of Katalla, where there are large seepages of petroleum. Under the water power bill, which originally was administered by the Interior Department, but is now administered, I understand, by an independent commission, a 50-year lease is granted under fixed conditions and terms for the duration of the lease. In placer and quartz mining, permanent occupancy of the property is obtained under specific conditions; namely, a minimum of $100 worth of work must be done on each claim per annum, and title to the property may be secured by patent after $500 worth of work has been done. The Forest Service regulations permit a 30-year lease on a block of timber in Alaska under fixed terms and conditions. Also, sufficient timber is set aside to add another 15 years to the life of the enterprise. It seems to me that if permanent occupancy is guaranteed the man who wishes to construct a newsprint or pulp mill, a petroleum production plant, or hydroelectric plant, any one of which, on a large scale, would involve an investment of several million dollars, certainly some assurance of a supply of raw material should be given the man who invests his money in a salmon cannery. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours, JACK UNDERWOOD. STATEMENT OF SENATOR WALLGREN Mr. Chairman, yesterday Mr. Slaughter of the Department of the Interior was good enough to explain, in answer to some questions of mine, the reasons for the belated departmental suggestions to change S. 930. A good number of the changes suggested had of course already been made by me after conferences with Dr. Gabrielson and the Secretary-and included in the bill before we got this report. After hearing Mr. Slaughter, I have carefully studied his various suggestions; and in order that the record may be complete, I should like—with the committee's permission-briefly to indicate my recommendations as to which should be accepted or rejected. Section 2: In section 2 the Department has accepted my language concerning the jurisdiction of the United States. The committee will understand that this entire question is left for diplomatic consideration or for future legislation. The department has suggested that the reenactment of the language of the White Act should not be made. I cannot agree with this. The objection seems to be a pure matter of form. It is said that in S. 930 this language appears in the preamble as a statement of congressional policy, whereas in the White Act it appears in a proviso. It seems to me that in either case Congress is writing a law and that the congressional words are the same whether stated in the form of a simple sentence or stated in the form of a proviso. Moreover, I want to point out to the committee that there is no inconsistency between anything in S. 930 and this language of the White Act which I propose to continue. The restrictions in S. 930 relate to fishing gear and vessels. There are no restrictions on the right of any person to secure a fishing license under S. 930 unless he is an alien. This is the same as the existing law. The only difference between the exact words of the White Act and what I have suggested for section 2 is the addition of the phrase "subject to the provisions of this act." I might say to the committee that these words were put in at the suggestion of Dr. Gabrielson who wanted to make it perfectly clear that the protection of the right of every citizen to get a fishing license would not interfere with his control of fishing gear. I am satisfied that S. 930 makes no change in the White Act and if there is any question of aboriginal rights, it is no different in this bill than it was in 1926 under the White Act. Section 3: In view of the Department's suggestion about using dynamite, I am very glad to make the insertions they want in subsection (a) of section 3. The next two amendments are those which I suggested originally and of course I think they are desirable. I cannot agree that those who purchase fish without knowledge of their having been illegally caught should be penalized. I have found no other congressional enactment which does this. Indeed, I find that in the Fair Labor Standards Act, there is a somewhat similar provision protecting the common carriers who accept goods for shipment without knowledge of any violation in their manufacture. In such cases the carrier is not subject to penalties for shipment of such illegally manufactured goods. As I said yesterday, the violator should be punished, not the innocent purchaser without knowledge. Section 4: I can see no difference between the language the Department suggests on page 4, line 4, from that which appears in the bill, but if they prefer their way of saying it I see no objections to using such language. Section 5: The changes suggested by the Department in subsections (c) and (d) of section 5 seem to me to be proper. If I do not, however, think that the proposed changes in section 5 (e) are desirable. Two sentences of their proposal are already in the bill. In my statement yesterday I hoped I made it clear that I think that this is a conservation measure. it is, the sentence on page 6, line 6, should be retained. This means that in determining whether a man should get a permit for a vessel or a lease in one fishing area, the controlling considerations of conservation in that area should govern. If we permit the Director to withhold permits or leases in one area because the applicant there is an applicant or a permit holder in some other place, I think we open the way for all types of personal preference. This sentence was talked about a good deal yesterday and I want to make it clear that I think the safeguards it imposes are highly important. Section 6: The Department's proposals for section 6 (c) cannot, I believe, be acceptable to the committee. The two changes proposed would in effect permit both taxation of the industry and the expenditure of the proceeds without any congressional control. This is not a revenue bill, as I stated yesterday. The fees to be collected should be sufficient only to offset the cost of administering the regulatory system now provided. I called the committee's attention to page 23, section 19, of the bill, which provides for a continuing automatic appropriation of all such fees and rentals. This makes it important that a specific limitation on the amounts of such fees be specified on page 7. Unless this is done we have substantially given the Department the power to tax and spend the money without any congressional control. Section 7: After very careful study of the Department's proposals for section 7, I am persuaded that this section should not be changed. In S. 930 the permit or lease holder has no right to continue fishing if the Director closes any area for conservation reasons. If his privilege of fishing is taken away, he has no right to compensation. If the holder of a permit or lease dies, his heirs cannot inherit, or if he wants to sell, he cannot do so without the specific permission of the Director. If he abuses the fishing privilege, he likewise loses it. Moreover, he must secure a renewal every 3 years for a permit and every 5 years for a lease. Obviously, this is no vested right, whatever that term may mean. On the other hand, section 7, as it appears in S. 930, says in plain language that those who are now fishing shall be given preference. The Department's proposal would give the Director practically unlimited authority to distribute permits and leases. The only limitation is that in his judgment the scheme should be “appropriate," or that the plan should be "equitable and reasonable.” This would throw the entire scheme of allotments of permits and leases open to every type of personal preference, individual judgment, even political favoritism, and almost any type of abuse. Under the Department's language there is no control over the Director's discretion. It would be perfectly possible for him to displace a man who had been fishing 5 years and give his permit to some other person whom the Director thought was more deserving or who, in the Director's opinion, should be in the fishing business. I say again that this is a conservation bill and not social legislation to permit the Director to determine who should or who should not, for social reasons, be in the fishing business. One further thought: There is no possibility of monopoly under S. 930. Since every transfer of either a fishing permit or lease must be approved by the Director, it is certainly within his power to prevent any person in the future from monopolizing such privileges. Moreover, I call the committee s attention to the fact that section 7 does not exclude anybody. If those now fishing are provided for and additional gear is available, anyone may apply. Finally, I ask the committee to notice that in section 7 of S. 930 it is provided that if any reduction in gear is made, and a complete fishing cycle elapses, the field is then completely free when the restriction is removed. In other words, even the preference rights for those now fishing may be lost if any restriction stays in existence for one fish cycle and is later removed. Section 10: The suggestions that the city of Juneau, Alaska, be included seem to me to be proper. I cannot agree with the proposed changes on page 12. If the regulations are to be changed, I think the reasons for such changes should be stated. It helps no one to come to a hearing to discuss proposed changes unless he knows why such changes are to be made. The changes suggested in subsection (e) on page 15 I regard as an improvement and I am happy to adopt them. Section 11: The change suggested on page 16 likewise seems to me to be desirable and I am happy to be able to recommend it to the committee. Section 12: It seems to me the hearing has made perfectly clear the need for judicial review. The fact that in the only case under the White Act and in the only case under the Taylor Grazing Act, the Department has urged four or five objections to entertaining any court review, seems to me to be persuasive. There should be a clear provision for this as there is in many acts, such as the Federal Communications Act, the Civil Aeronautics Act, the Food and Drug Act, the Motor Carrier Act and practically every other recent Federal statute. method, the time, the place and the procedure for such court review should be made clear, as it is in section 12. The The proposal to delete the court review section of S. 930 is somewhat surprising in view of the Secretary's recommendation in 1940 in the third session of the Seventy-sixth Congress. At that time, in a bill to provide for judicial review in certain cases involving disposition of public lands, the Department of Interior recommended the adoption of a court review provision which is very close to that contained in section 12 of S. 930. A comparison of what the Secretary recommended in 1940 and the provision of S. 930 shows a very close similarity, and considerable identity of language. Section 17 and 23: The changes suggested in section 17 by the Department seem to me to be acceptable, as are most of the changes in section 23. I see no reason, however, for any reference to the Alaska game law, since that act itself is not applicable to commercial fishing and this S. 930 does not cover sport fishing. Mr. Chairman, during the course of this hearing there has been the suggestion that S. 930 might in some undisclosed fashion affect the aboriginal rights of Alaskan Indians. During my many years in the House and my 4 years in the Senate, I have always been deeply sympathetic with Indian problems. I have repeatedly interested myself in provisions designed to promote the welfare of the various American Indians and to elevate them to full status as citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities. My interest in this field has also, as the departmental representatives well know, extended to the Indians of Alaska. I do not know whether the Indians of Alaska ever possessed any aboriginal exclusive fishing rights. I do know that during the past year there has been considerable discussion of this Indian question. The Secretary has already proposed one exclusive fishery for the Indians in the form of a reservation on Kodiak Island, Alaska, at the mouth of the Karluk River. Both employers and employees in the Alaskan fishery industry have, I am informed, written to the Secretary on this question. As I stated earlier, I think the law on this subject as contained in the White Act should be left unchanged. I believe that the appropriate place for a discussion or any inquiry into this question is the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, of which I have the honor to be a member. I want to say to this committee that I am going to suggest to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs that within the near future opportunity be given both to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior and to all other interested persons to come before that committee and explore fully these questions concerning the Alaskan Indians. I am confident in view of the importance of the problem and its effect upon the white residents of Alaksa and others who earn their livelihood in the Territory that the Department will take no further action until the Indian Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to consider the problem. [Subcommittee Print] [S. 930, 78th Cong., 1st Sess.] [Omit the part in black brackets and insert the part printed in italic] A BILL To assure conservation of and to permit the fullest utilization of the fisheries of Alaska, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known by the short title of the Alaska Fishery Act. POLICIES AND PURPOSES [SEC. 2. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that for the necessary protection and preservation of the fisheries of Alaska the jurisdiction of the United States extends, subject to all valid treaties, to all of the waters adjacent to the coast of Alaska, east of the international boundary in the Bering Sea between the United States and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, as defined in the treaty between Russia and the United States, concluded at Washington on March 30, 1867 (15 Stat. 539), whereby Alaska was ceded to the United States. This Act shall be applicable throughout all of such waters as are waters of Alaska or are less than two hundred fathoms in depth or which shall be declared by the President to be fishing waters. It is further declared to be the policy of the United States that to permit the fullest utilization of the fisheries of Alaska consistent with the maintenance of the continuity of such fisheries from year to year and the reasonable development thereof, subject only to the provisions of this Act, all fisheries in the waters of or adjacent to the Territory of Alaska, not included in the coastal waters of the Annette Island Fishery Reserve, shall be open to all citizens of the United States free of all exclusive or several rights under any claim of occupancy, aboriginal or otherwise. To these ends it is the purpose of this Act to assure conservation of the fisheries of Alaska and to permit the fullest utilization of such fisheries, to authorize such regulations as are essential to such conservation and utilization and to provide for the reasonable development of such fisheries.] SEC. 2. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that, for the necessary protection and preservation of the fisheries of Alaska, this Act shall be applicable throughout all of the waters of Alaska, including all of the waters adjacent |