The Alaska daily empire., 1923-04-18

which was not justified by the pros. poets of accomplishing anything for the benefit of the people of Alaska.
 He called attention to the admitted state of depletion of the Alaskan fisheries on which he said there was no dispute. This condition forms the basis of the presidential orders creating reserves, he said. These carried with them the idea that packs could and would be limited as is not otherwise possible under laws that exist. However. he added. the regu lations adopted within the reserva- tiOns, permits issued, etc, do not give assurance that there will be any limitation. The most repugnant fea- ture of the system, he pointed out, is the tendency to create a monop- oly.
 There is, he admitted, reason to desire that the reservations be test ed but this could be accomplished by simply authorizing the Attorney Gen aral to file a suit, or su.ts for that purpose in court of competent jufis diction. This, he contended would serve all the ends desired The reso- lution goes much further than that he said, quoting from the original resolution as follows the Attorney General Is directed to pro tect and defend any private citizen or corporation of the United States against any charge of the violation of any rules or regulations promul- gated by the Secretary of Commerce or the Bureau of Fisheries attempting to deny to any person or corporation the common right of fisheries" etc
 Power Still Remains
 The substitute resolution adopted by the Senate, he argued, while not containing these same words, does cover the same ground by providing that the Attorney General take such other steps as he may deem necessary to defend and render secure the common right of fisheries to the peoople Alaska etc
 He took issue with the proponents of the common rights of fisheries idea as based on tho Magma Charta, declaring that the latter did not enter into the question in any manner. It. he said, placed certain limitations on tho power of tho executive but not on parliament. The control of public lands and resources. he con tended, is vested in Congress abso lutely. whether they be on land or water. Congress could divide all tho land under the water inside the threemile limit into ten acre tracts and dispose of them if it so deemed fit Thus, whatever claim to com mon rights of fisheries now exists, does so by virtue solely of non-action by Congress. Arguments that Con gross could not abrogate such rights or that the executive department would have no authority over fish cries, or other resources. he said. are not well founded. Not only is there such authority. but certain court decisions give it well defined status. Hc quoted at length from the Supreme Courts ruling in the case of the United States ys. Mid West Oil Company to substantiate his point. He also referred to other cases which he said involved the same question and under which the right of the President to make with drawals is upheld
 Is Economic Crime
 The whole reserve as established in Alaska, he characterized as eco homie crimc and that the reserves of coal and oil lands by Roosevelt had strangled tho industrial develop. mont of the entire Territory. This was a crime of the first magnitude and far more serious to Alaska than the withdrawal of fisheries which comparatively speaking, affected but a few people. "We cannot question the night of the President to so act" he asserted.
 He said he was unwilling to tell anyone to go ahead and fish regard less of the rules and regulations. as the resolution implied, until the validity of such had been determined in the courts. Such a course of pro. cedure, he pointed out, is almost tan tamount to a declaration of war and could easily lead to violence and cause bloodshed. Should this happen the body passing the resolution would be morally responsible, he claimed.
 He also argued that nothing was to be gained by setting aside the reservation orders and regulations. It would not hasten Congressional action and might retard 1t. In that case, the fisheries would only suffer as it was well known that the pres ent fisheries law is inadequate, and not capable of being efficiently ad- ministered. He hoped that the so- called Grant Fisheries Memorial would load Congress to turn over control of the fisheries to the Al aska Legislature where it belongs. Until such control ds established, he said, there is little hope that there will be any improvement in the fish cries situation.
 Aver Against Bill
 Mir. Aver also spoke briefly against