The Lynden tribune. [volume] (Lynden, Wash.) 1908-current, 1914-06-25
The FISH BILL

the Seattle FL. Adhcs an oa So
ment against the passage Of iniiia-
tire measure No. II known as the
fish bill,' which was published in
full in The Tribune several weeks
ago in order to acquaint our read
ers with the aims and purposes OF
the proposed new law.
The Bellingham American-Reyeil-
le on Tuesday reproduces MIR. Gil
bert's article, which it says editorial
Is Should be read locally for The
reason that 1t pertains TO the sec
ond industry in importance in this
part Of the state"
Many readers of The Tribune
having undoubtedly read Mr.. Gill
bert's negative argument as well as
that of others in the Bellingham
daily press, The Tribune in order
TO acquaint it's readers with the ar
guments of both sides herewith gives
an affirmative argument-one In
favor of the Fish Bilis" passage
by Fred J. Chamberlain, chair
man of the joint legislative commit
tee Of the Organizations who are
proposing and supporting the Sew
en- Sisters Initiative Measures.
hI. SlldH Oci ldlu Hi4lcs
An analysis Of Initiative Measure
No. II shows the following features:
First. Ii repeats the secrecy
clause" of the present code.
Second. 1t repeats the backbone
of the fish monopoly.
Third. II creates a revenue for
the state from one of its greatest re-
sources that has heretofore been
bill of expense 10 the taxpayer.
Fourth. Ii provides that oysters
from the state reservation shall
be sold a. a reasonable price.
The secrecy clause" of the code
now provides that reports to the
fish commissioner are confidential
and not open to public inspection
and IL he or any one in his employ
shall disclose information or sta
,istics he shall be guilty OF mis-
| demeanor and punished by a fine
not exceeding 81 900.
Is there any other business In the
state that can stand off" even an
assessor with a secrecy clause"
WHY NOT PUBLICITY?
Initiative Measure No. II repeats
this secrecy clause" and makes il
the duty of the fish commissioner
TO thoroughly investigate the fishing
industry and publish the facts. Why
not?
The fish trust does not hatch
the fish nor feed them. they do not
grow TO maturity on their grounds
nor in their waters. These fish be-
long TO the people and they are en-
/ titled 10 some return for the use
and appropriation of their property.
Turn on the light that the people.
as we'll as the fish commissioner,
may know the facts concerning
their own business.
Section 5212 of the present code
provides. If the locator or owner
of fishing location for pound nets
! or fish traps In the waters of Puget
Sound fails TO construct his fishing
appliances thereto at least one
time during period Of four years
his location shall be abandoned"
This has been amended to read.
during any year." and will thus
break the present monopoly of traps
| by the fish trust.
Has any other business in the
state special law like this?
ONE-FIFTH FOR PUBLIC
Section 5211 now provides for the
payment TO the state the sum of
81 for each 1000 fish taken and
| section 5213 provides for the pay
ment of 80 cents d ton by those en-
gagged in the business of buying or
selling and preserving OF otherwise
/ dea ling in salmon other than can
-
inended to secure a specified sum
on each OF the species of salmon
taken. amounting TO about one-fifth
of the clear net profit. Why not?
They are our fish. Ii We give them
| four-fifths of our fish should We
not be permitted to retain one-fifth
for our use?
Do you want to reduce your state
tax about 100000 annually? This
is what No. IL proposes to do.
Section 524S provides that oysters
taken from the state oyster reserves
snail be paid for at the rate of 25
cents per sack on Puget Sound and
| 10 cents per sack in all other places
In the Willapa Harbor district
there was taken from the state
oyster reserves in 1S11-l2. 22,409
sacks of oysters, for which the
state received 10 cents per sack.
and for the Puget Sound district in
! 1911-l2, 7.906% sacks at 25 cents
sack.
Oysters have been wholesaljng in
Olympia this year as high as $13 a
sack. Estimating these oysters at
reasonable price of $3.50 sack,
We lost in that deal alone s223,l5O.
SO in two years.
Is there any other business in the
safe that enjoys such special
privilege by statute law that
state property with market value
of $3.50 sack must be sold at
from 10 cents to % cents a sack
Who placed such laws as these
on the statute books. Were you con
suited about them? Did they tell
you about them?
According to the sworn reports,
the gross output of salmon alone in
this state from 1902 to 1912 in
elusive Is $S7,S71,1S4.39,a and during
all that time this euOrmous Industry