ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 413 



As my sole aim tlirougbout this inquiry has been to elicit truth for 



the purpose of laying down a basis of action for the sure protection and 



perpetuation of the Alaska salmon, without injury to any legitinuite 



enterprise, I sent copies of the prepared bills, with the following letter, 



to the principal Alaska cauners, and their replies and criticisms are 



subjoined: 



AVashington, D. C, Februarji 1, 1895. 



Gentlemen: Please find inclosed copies of t\YO bills about to be introduced iu 

 Congress for the protection of tln^ salmon lisheries of Alaska. 



They are essentially the production of all that has been suggested for that purpose 

 from time to time by the representatives and friends of all of the corporations inter- 

 ested in the Alaskan salmon-canning business. 



The bills introduced by Messrs. Stewart, Mitchell, liobbins, and others; the sug- 

 gestions made by Messrs. Ilirsch, Hume, and Barling, and the reports and recommen- 

 dations of the Hon. Marshall McDonald, Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, have 

 been diligently examined by me, and it has been my honest intention and sole aim 

 to frame a bill that would lie as nearly just and equal to all interested in the per- 

 petuation of the salumn fisheries as it is possible to be. 



If I have not succeeded in doing all that should be done, or if I have suggested 

 something that would be unfair or injurious, I beg of you to point it out immediately, 

 and I promise to give your suggestions the most respectful attenticm. 



Tlie proposition to levy a tax of 5 cents per case and 10 cents p<'r barrel comes to 

 me directly from the canners themselves, and, from what I observed while at the 

 canneries, I am in favor of the tax, and I think it will prove a blessing to you who 

 have millions invested in the business. 



The amount of the tax wisely expended by the Government in propagating and 

 protecting salmon will be of lasting benefit to all concerned, but more especially to 

 you who are deeply interested. 

 Very respectfully, 



Joseph Murray, 

 Special Agent for the Protection of the Salmon Fisheries in Alaska. 



Alaska Association, 



San Francisco, Cal. 



The following replies from the several firms addressed and from Mr. 

 Barling of the Alaska Improvement Company were received by me, 

 and are given in full for the information of the Department : 



San Francisco, Fehruary ii, 1895. 



Dear Sir: We have the pleasure to acknowledge receipt of yours of the Ist 

 instant, covering a bill as proposed by yourself, for the protection of salmon fish- 

 eries of Alaska, and in response to your request if you have suggested anything that 

 was unjust that we should point it out immediately, we wired you as follows: 

 "Letter received, with thanks. Bill objectionable. Same explained by mail." 



And in confirmation of same beg to say that in section 1 you specify that the erec- 

 tion of dams, barricades, fish wheels, fences, traps, pound nets, etc., in any of the 

 waters of Alaska shall be prohibited. So far as dams, barricades, fish wheels, and 

 fences, we agree with you most strongly, but, as you are aware, the fishing grounds 

 of Alaska cover a large amount of territory, and what might be just and best for 

 one section are not for another; for instance, in Prince William Sound, Cook Inlet, 

 and Bristol Bay, where the waters at point of fishing are from 5 to 30 miles wide, 

 the use of traps and pound nets are necessary to make the business remunerative. 

 And as it might be necessary that the law be general, we would suggest that the use 

 of traps and pound nets be permitted in the waters of Alaska, but not to extend 

 over one-third the width of any stream — thus leaving two-thirds the width free for 

 the uninterrupted passage of the fish. 



To make a close season from noon on Friday of each week until 6 o'clock p. m, 

 of the Saturday following woulil work a very great hardship in a district like Bristol 

 Bay, where the pack of red salmon is made in fifteen to sixteen days at the outside. 



Referring to a special tax, we hardly feel it just that the Government should impose 

 same, when it is a fact that the Alaska salmon packers pay yearly upward of $100,000 

 from import duties. There may be locations that would warrant propagation, and 

 that a tax should be levied for that i)urpose and for that direct location would 

 certainly be proper. 



We beg to ask that, iu making laws for the protection of the salmon, you do 

 not lose sight of the fact that the canners who have large sums invested in propertj', 



