The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1905-12-06

Warden Van Dusen, for the month Of
November has been compiled and for.
warded to the board of fish commission.
els at Salem. II is very comprehen
sive report of the work of the last
month, including detailed statement
of the hatchery operations, II i print,
ed in full below:
Astoria, Ore, Dec. l. 1905.
To the Honorable Board OF Fi~h Com.
missioners, Salem, Oregon.
Gentsmem;--Arrtsts and pro-aru.
tions during the month for violations
of the fishing laws have been as fol.
lows.
District No. I.
The case against Carl Johnson for
fishing with gill net for salmon in the
waters of the Clackamas river April II.
1905, without first having obtained Il.
VHrt, WIS ultu III tne AHNuih NoulA
at Oregon City before Judge Mcbride,
November %, 1905, who upheld the
of Deputy District Attorney
c. Schuebel, and ruled in favor of the
state.
The defendant was ably represented
by Attorneys G. H. Dimick and G.. T..
Hayes, of Oregon City, who undertook
to prove by witnesses that it had been
to allow persons to fish
without license. and that the deputy
warden and water bailiirs in making
their rounds among the fishermen col
ectcd the money for liccne from the
fshermen and turned II over to the
master fish warden. Also that il had
,een customary for the fishermen To
proceed To fish n soon as they had
either paid the money to the deputy
warden or water bailiiI or Forwarded
he money to the warlcn'S Office with.
to have the licen-c issued
md in their possession. They also at
empted TO show that permission 10
ish had been given Mr.. Johnson by one
4 the water bailiiTs, upon the state
nent made by johnson, that be had
orwarded the money to the warden.
The court held that no evidence could
~ introduced TO show that it. had been
customary either for the warden or the
water bailifr- or any other persons to
rant anyone the privilege Of fishing
without a license. That the law pro
,ided that no one could fish without
irst having obtained a license. That
10 evidence could be introduced To show
hat other persons had been permitted
% f.,h without license. or that any
water bailh or any other persons had
,iven him permission to fish upon his
statement that he had forwarded the
money to the Office OF the warden for
ijs license. That the only defen5e that
he defendant could make in this ca-
yas. did he have license in his pos
session at the time he was fishing
That il he did not have license at
nat time he wa. guilty regardless oi
my custom or any permit that may
nave been given him. That he was ppre'
,umed TO know the law, 10 the effect
hat he could not fish without licen.
q, and il he had 80 fshcd he was guilty
Is charged.
The defense. not being able TO show
hat Mr.. Johnon had license, asked
o change their plea and entered plea
If guilty, whereupon the court ordered
hat he should pay fine Of Sj9.W
md costs, amounting in all to the sum
# $4,000.
This was the case instituted early
ast spring by Water Bailiff w. w.
Smith, Of the Clackamas and william.
,tte rivers, and as tried, in the first IN.
,tance, May 3, 1905, in the Justice Court
It Oregon City before a jury who
'ound the defendant guilty as charged
Thereupon, an order was made by
Justice of the Peace Stipp, fning him
10000 and costs. An appeal from this
lecision, to the Cirucuit Court, was i'm.
taken by the defense, result
ng, as above reported, in the verdict
1f the lower court being sustained.
As regards the contention raised by
The defense, shat il had been the Gus.
Tom of the warden 10 allow fishermen
to fish until the deputy warderi or
water bailiG came around to collect
the license" beg to state, that the
attorneys for the defendant were wrong
about this matter as far as I am con.
cerned, for such has been no policy
Of mine; it apparently was the custom