The Daily Alaska empire., 1945-03-15

driven, or stake, traps used in Cook Inlet are not covered by the bill, Rep. Taylor declared that they are generally owned by residents and that their catch is not comparable with that Of the large traps operated by the canneries.
 Both MT. Arnold and Rep. Taylor, tefore leaving the stand, asked for the privilege of the final rebuttal statement. MT. Arnold, however, de- claring that he did not intend to en- gage in a game of ring around the rosy, made his second appearance after MT. Marshall had followed Rep. Taylor. He brought out that stake traps are not as unimportant as Rep Taylor had made them ap- pear. Dummy" traps, he added, in their true meaning, were diScontin- ued many years ago. What are now called "duinm5' traps are really marginal traps, the operation of which is made possible on a limited scale by proximity to more efficient locations. It would not be possible to operate them alone, they can be made to pay only as a part of a generally successful group of traps therefore, if such sites were relin- quished they would not be of po- tential value for residents to acquire, MT Arnold stated
 Questioned by Senator Butrovich, Jr., as to possible effects of increas- ed taxes on prices of canned salmon products to consumers, MT Arnold declared that, because of competi- tive factors, production costs are not always directly reflected in the sell ing price of salmon.
 Validity Of Bill
 MT. Arnold concluded his second appearance with the statement that he disliked to argue the question of the validity of the bill. Justice should be the criterion for the Legis- lature, he avowed but, be pointed cut, should the doubtful provisions of the act be declared invalid, the present license charges and the rev. enues they bring the Territory would be repealed. With regard to the opinion, of the Department of h. terior Solicitor General, MT. Arnold stressed that the same authority had been wrong in his celebrated "Margold" opinion, with regard to Aboriginal Rights"
 MT Marshall gave his testimony in support of House Bill No. 35. He argued that, if only it would be recognized, traps are in truth "ob- solete," because of their threat tc conservation. The Fish and Wild life Service is constantly increasing restrictions on them, he declared. As a somewhat different argument against the use of traps, he em- phasized their destructive effects or species of fish, many of them very useful, other than salmon. Such de. Istruction, MT. Marshall declared, i! most apparent in so-called dummy traps, which are infrequently brail. ed.
 MT Marshall cited Bristol Bay ! to illustrate that fishermen receive the largest pay checks where trap are not in use.
 Refutes Arguments
 Rep. Taylor returned to the stant to endeavor to refute the new argu ments advanced by MT. Arnold. HI recited an instance where boat fish ermen had been put to work in can neries at time when the fish wer running exceptionally well and trap were supplying all the fish the can neries could handle - not, as MI Arnold had said is the common practice in the Prince William Soun' area at pay of $l00 day or more but at $40 a day-far less than the could have earned had they bee allowed to fish.
 Rep. Peratrovich put as the onl real question before the Senate in it consideration of the bill: Should tn Territory permit the use of typ of fishing gear that deprives a larg part of the people of fair living He implied that House Bill No. 3 falls far snort Of what is actuall