Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1905-04-24
THAT CLAM BILL.
ALEXANDER POISON CLAIMS Gre.
Dit FOR DAVIS Law.
Argues That Protection is Necessary
to Pre- serve the Clam Beds. He
Mistakes the Position of the Her.
aid in This Matter, and Poses as
Clam Expert.


taken occasion to criticise the HERALD,
through the columns of the Daily Bule-
tin, on the article in the la st issue on
the subject of the Davis clam law. Mr..
Poison speaks as il he had full know-
edge OF the subject, and says protection
is necessary. This may be true. Our
knowledge OF the subject will NOT Justify
contradiction. Fish Commissioner ker.
shaw also says protection is necessary,
but admits that he does not know how
to secure it, and recommends that ex
perts be engaged to ''sludy their life his
tory and habits" and then proceed to
legislate intelligently for their preserva-
ton.
Some OF the argument advanced by
Mr.. Poison is silly in the extreme, and if
carried to logical conclusion in other
than clam lines, would soon put a stop
to the present cutting OF so much timber
in this locality. For, as Mr.. Poison
might say: "Unless some protection is
afforded this industry it will soon be in
such depleted condition that it will
take ages to bring it back" This sort Of
argument would prohibit mining or the
use of numerous articles of commerce
held in natures storehouse that once
removed requires long time to renew.
But, Mr.. Poison mistakes the article
referre to if he construes it to oppose
proper protection. The criticism of the
HERALD has to do with the devious
methods adopted in the enactment of
this law, which is 50 apparently framed
to put the AbeIdee cannery out of busi
ness. II it was a measure to protect
clans, along the lines suggested by Mr..
Poison, it would never have omitted the
$500 miles of shore line on Puget Sound,
or fixed time that would prevent the
commercial use OF clans.
While Mr.. Poison may claim RESPONSE
bility for q measure OF clam protection
by his having suggested it to Mr.. Davis
Of course, somebody had to tell hint
is very doubtful if he will stand sponsor
for the methods pursued in securing the
passage Of the law. and this is what the
HERALD is condemning, not a straight
forward enactment OF an intelligentlv
/ framed protection law.
The entire record OF the passage of this
law reveals the working of petty mind.
with total disregard Of who might be
grievously injured that comes near being
criminal when INDUCED in by a law
maker. AS stated in our former article,
the original bill called for the four
months close season that is now the law.
At the instance of Mr.. Davis, the mana
ger of the Aberdeen cannery went to
Olympia to meet the fisheries committee,
whom, Mr.. Davis sal |, were anxious to
protect the clans, but desired to avoid
injuring any established industries. Mr..
Davis agreed with Manager Halferty
that four months would be too long a
season, and agreed to reduce it to three
months. When the committee met Mr..
Davis was absent, attending meeting
of another committee, and Mr.. Benn,
Mr.. Halferty and the fish commissioner
discussed the clam question thoroughly
with the committee, and decided that
two months close season was sufficient,
and so reported the bill, which included
Puget Sound and all clam shores in the
state. No expression of dissatisfaction
was uttered by Mr.. Davis, who sat in his
seat in the house and voted for the bill
in this form. And right here is where
that gentleman leaves himself open to all
the suspicious that surround the meas
ure If the bill in that form did not
satisfy him as beng the proper protec.
ton, he owed it to himself and his con.
stituents to have risen and said so. This
would have put the matter up to the
house, and made his colleagues from
this county aware OF his attitude. But
apparent satisfaction of everybody, Man.
ager Halferty returned to Aberdeen and
proceeded to spend - 900 on additional
equipment for his cannery.
Having by this means aPayed all
, doubt in the minds OF his fellow county
{ members, Davis proceeded to soothe his
offended dignity by secretly following
) the bill to the senate and having il
altered to his original notion of four
, months. The action of the senate shows
, tn at 1t did not concede tina four months
were necessary, but deferred to Mr..
Davis's wish for his own locality, anG
) allowed the bill to 60 through, after
=, eliminating Puget Soun' frlm it entirely
Continued on page ST.