The Alaska daily empire., 1923-03-21

iican citizens which are equally as sacred as the habeas corpus. night of tulal by jury, or any constitutional right.
 He refraned from any direct per sonal attack on any member of the Bureau of Fisheries. or the Depart ,ment of Commerce. Asked by Rep resentative Foster if he thought Sec retary Hoover, Commissioner O'Mal- ley and Dr. Gilbert, fisheries expert of Stamford University and on the staff of the Bureau of Fisheries, are "attemrting to do something to aid Alaska. the Delegate replied that public meeting. adding but I will
 give it to the gentleman privately" Not to Answer Critics Referring to recent statements made by Secretary Hoover, Assistant Secretary Huston and Commissioner OiMalley on the Alaskan fisheries sit
 uatlon and the Delegates charges agelnst the Department and it's Blu reau, the Delegate declared it is be- nea'.h his dignity to make any reply to them and that he would not do so.
 He reviewed his stand on the ques- tion as set forth in remarks inserted Icy him in the Congressional Record
 on February 2S. He reviewed fishing laws generally, going back to the time of the granting of the Magma Charta in England by King John un- der comlpulsion by the ibarons. whom
 he asserted were models of upright ness compared to the fish barons" controlling the Alaskan fishing in- dustry.
 He questioned the authority of the
 Bureau eff Fisheries to give away grants to the fishenes and quoted from court decisions to substantate
 his reasoning. He reiterated that the entire policy under attack by him is a scheme of the fish trust" put
 into effect through intrigue, by un- fair tactics. He said that the end
 aimed at and achieved is in viola ton of Section Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. The fisheries of the sea are natural resource and available for every American to take,
 and there is no exigency of commer- cial life that justifies the abrcgation of that right, he asserted.
 Quotes Trade Commission
 'I have charged the existence of fish trust and that it connived to
 attain that right" ne asserted. He then undertook to prove the exist ence of trust. In this connection he quoted from report of the Fed eral Trade Commission, issued in 1918, in which the existence of combination of salmon canners which controlled prices of that product was charged. The alleged fish trust, he said, is affiliated with the meat trust and that it's control Of the salmon canning Hndustry might sur
 pass that of the Big Five in the meat
 packing industry.
 Takes Up Second Charge
 He dealt next with his charge that the reserve system, is the scheme of the canners through which 1t acquii d control of the red fishing industry. He said that the allotments were pre- pared by the trust and submitted to the Bureau of Fisheries and that the zone arrangements were Included in the scheme He quoted from what he said was document prepared by the trust and sent to the Bureau oi Fisheries in which fit was demanded that no licenses be issued to new canneries In the reserves until the y,tpply of fish was sufficient to per
 init canner;es already established there ito operate without further re- strictiions. This, he charged, was not request or suggestion, but com- mand from the trust to the Bureau of Fisheries. As long as the pres ent arrangement continues, he added. as long as the terms are dictated by the big canncrs, no new licenses will be issued
 Control Is Established
 Taking up his charge that the re- serve system had enabled the big canners to establish. monopoly and control the red salmon industry, the Delegate said that under the permits as originally issued for Bristol Bay, two companies, the Alaska Packers Association and Libby, McNeil X Libby, were given 6o.5 per cent Of
 the fish in that district and 10 small
 CT companies 39 per cent. An addi- tional permit issued to one of the latter. he added, cut the percentage leo about 53 or 54 per cent.
 In Chignik Bay. he said. three com panies, the Alaska Packers Associa- tion. Northwestern Fisheries Com pany and the Columbia River Com pany. were given the exclusive right to fish. An old canncryman, Capt. IJ. P. Nelson. who applied for per mission to build a small cannery, was denied it on the ground that the fish
 he would take would most likely be
 fish belonging to the Chignlk Bay
 run and would mean further deple-
 tlon of that district
 Tn the Kodlak zone, at Karluk River, lhe said independent fisher 1 men, including two former service
 men, had been refused permits to | I