98 REPORT OF ALASKA INVESTIGATIONS. 



In September, upon invitation, I addressed the grand jury at Juneau, and the gist of my talk was that 

 not only was it a fact that no jury in Alaska had ever returned a verdict against the fishing interests, but 

 it was almost impossible to find a United States commissioner or deputy marshal who was in sympathy 

 with the prosecutions. It was placed before them clearly that until there is a change in the sentiment 

 in the jury room regarding these interests when they violate the laws there is very little use in trying to 

 protect the valuable fisheries of Alaska. I was asked by this jury to write a letter stating briefly what 

 I would recommend for the betterment of these conditions, and the following is a copy of my communi- 

 cation : 



JUNEAU, ALASKA, August 24, 11)14. 

 To the FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY, 



Juneau, Alaska. 



At the suggestion of your honorable body, based on my address before you this afternoon, I respectfully offer the following brief 

 suggestions for the protection and preservation of the great fishing industry of Alaska: 



First. The appropriation by Congress of sufficient money to build at least nine adequate and modern boats for the patrol of all the 

 waters of Alaska. 



Second. The appropriation of sufficient money to provide an adequate personnel of not less than 25 competent men, as wardens, 

 inspectors, etc., who will be able to cover properly the coast and inland waters of Alaska at all times and be assured sufficient funds for 

 their traveling expenses and subsistence. 



Third. The appropriation of sufficient funds to provide for at least four new hatcheries and their maintenance where the artificial 

 propagation of salmon can be conducted along sound business principles. 



Fourth. At least part of the money collected for tax on fish and fishing interests should be used for the protection and maintenance 

 of the fisheries of Alaska. To-day the tax on fish exceeds the amount appropriated by Congress for the maintenance of the Alaskan fisheries, 

 still no part of that revenue reverts to the protection of its point of origin. 



At all events it is obvious that the great industry is on the wane, and radical steps should be taken to protect it before it is too late. 



If the foregoing suggestions are clearly and fully carried out, I have no apprehension of the failure on the part of the United States 

 Fish Commission to protect the fisheries of Alaska, thereby assuring the future of this vast industry. 



Necessary changes of the laws are imperative, but these will no doubt be properly acted upon on the receipt of my report. 

 Very respectfully, 



E. LESTER JONES, 



United Stales Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries. 

 LABOR QUESTIONS. 



Alaska is such a vast territory, and its various enterprises are growing so rapidly, that the labor question 

 is becoming an important one. As yet the country is sparsely settled and must depend largely on imported 

 labor during the busy season. This has created a business complication which has not as yet been satisfac- 

 torily solved. 



Resident fishermen. In southeast Alaska this element composes a considerable proportion of those 

 engaged in taking salmon for the various canneries. The past season there were many idle men in southeast 

 Alaska, and upon inquiry I learned that most of them were fishermen. Their idleness was attributable 

 to two causes first, they were refused employment by certain canneries which preferred imported and alien 

 labor; and second, because of the fact that they had listened to agitators and trouble makers, who did 

 not have their interest at heart but who simply desired to create trouble for the canneries. Instead of 

 accepting regular employment and making use of the opportunity to earn good wages during the fishing 

 season, they spent their time in saloons and around the town creating dissension and bad feeling against the 

 fishing interests in general. 



From the standpoint of the fisherman, there are instances where the canneries show utter disregard of 

 fairness, illustrating pretty clearly at times the attitude toward resident labor. As an example, an incident 

 at one town may be cited where, during the first large run of sockeyes, all the white fishermen were warned 

 that there was little use of their fishing, for if they did the fish would be wasted, as they would not be 

 bought by the cannery. This was quite an unfortunate situation, for these men, some of them with families, 

 who live in Alaska, were compelled to sit idle and watch imported labor take their living away from them 

 at the time of year when the greatest amount of money could be earned. 



While I have looked at the situation from all angles and realize thoroughly that in some instances 

 the fisherman is to blame because of his unjust demands and his general lack of reliability, I think that 

 in cases where resident fishermen are available they should be given every opportunity to engage in this 

 or any other part of the industry for which they are fitted, and thus be allowed to earn a livelihood. In 

 other words, the resident fishermen should always have the preference over alien or imported fishermen. 

 This applies also to the Indians and the Aleuts. 



