The Daily Alaska empire., 1951-06-19

$50 and the Fisheries a
 One of the many promises made by the supporters of $50. the state hood bill now before Congress, is that this bill will give Alaska con- trol of its fisheries.
 This control is something the commercial fishermen of the Terri tory have long wanted. Many fish ermen's groups have expressed dis satisfaction with handling of the fisheries, particularly the salmon fisheries, by Federal agencies. Their dissatisfaction was intensi- fled this spring when new agency threatened to impose certain regn- lations that would have greatly re- stricted the fishermen in certain areas. s
 Would Federal Agencies continue to regulate our fisheries if Alaska becomes a state under the terms of $50? r
 Delegate E. L. Bartlett has said
 
 in his press releases that control of the fisheries is contained in the bill.
 The majority report of the Senate committee says, The new State would have the same control over the invaluable fisheries and wild life within its borders as do other States of the Union"
 The language of the bill itself, makes it very doubtful that Alaska would get this control. The language has been changed a good deal since last year.
 Last years statehood bill said very clearly that All property of the United States situated in the Territory of Alaska used in connec- sion with the conservation and pro- lection of the fisheries and of the fur and game of Alaska is hereby transferred and conveyed to the State of Alaska"
 The old bill, HR331, continued: The State of Alaska shall possess and exercise same jurisdiction and control over the fisheries and the fur and game of Alaska as are pos sessed and exercised by the several States within their respective terri torial limits, including adjacent waters"
 While this seems clear enough, there was objection to the wording of the fisheries section of the bill at last years hearing.
 The main objection came from MT. Edward w. Allen of Seattle. a of the International Fish cries Commission and the Interna- tional Pacific Salmon Commission.
 He said the language of HR331 was not specific enough; that it did not spell out exactly what con- trol Alaska would have over the fisheries and that the bill did not directly repeal a single Federal law or regulation. regarding the Alaska fisheries.
 Governor Gruening, commenting on MT Aliens objections. said: T think Mir Allen makes a valuable point when he calls to the attention of the committee the ambiguity in the present draft of HR 331. hope the committee will make sure that the possibility for doubt and liti- gation which MT. Allen envisions will be removed by clear and un- mistakable language"
 Well. the language of the bill has been changed a good deal since last year. But the language, so far as the fisheries section is concerned, is even more muddy.
 It does even less than the old bill about giving Alaska control of those fisheries.
 This is the language of the fish cries section of the bill as it now appears in subsection (g) of Section 5:
 All real and personal property of the United States situated in the Territory of Alaska which is speci- fically used for the sole purpose ot conservation and protection of the fisheries and wildlife of Alaska, un- der the provisions of the Alaska Game Law of July l. l943. as amended, and under the provisions of the Alaska commercial fisheries laws of June 26, 1906. and June 6. 1924. as supplemented and amended, shall be transferred and conveyed to the State of Alaska by the ap- propriate Federal agency:
 Provided. That such transfer