62 ALASKA FISHERIES AND FUR INDUSTRIES IN 1916. 
States of halibut or salmon taken in the north Pacific Ocean and 
tributary waters. This bill was as follows: 
That from and after ninety days after the passage of this act no fresh or frozen 
halibut or salmon from the north Pacific Ocean or its tributary waters shall be ad- 
mitted into the United States through any foreign country except when the same 
shall be in bond from an American port. 
In July, 1916, Senator Chamberlain, of Oregon, proposed an amend- 
ment to the revenue bill (H. R. 16763) worded the same as the 
McGillicuddy bill. The amendment was referred to the Finance 
Committee and reported back as a part (Title IX, sec. 103) of the 
revenue bill. On September 5, Senator Chamberlain spoke in behalf 
of the amendment, and it was agreed to. On September 7, when 
the Senate had under consideration the report of the conference com- 
mittee on the revenue bill, Senator Simmons, of North Carolina, 
stated that very reluctantly, after much discussion, the Senate con- 
ferees were forced to recede from the amendment. 
Objection was made to the Senate amendment by the House con- 
ferees because of the alleged fact that if it passed it would be regarded 
as an unfriendly act by Canada and that retaliatory measures affect- 
ing the fisheries of the east coast would result. No convincing argu- 
ments have as yet been advanced to cause any feeling of apprehen- 
sion that Canada can retaliate on the east coast in any way that will 
adversely affect American interests. The outstanding feature of this 
is that Canada needs the markets of the United States to absorb the 
Canadian catch of fish; hence retaliatory measures are highly 
improbable. 
With a view to acquiring authentic information regarding the 
Prince Rupert situation, the Bureau directed its local agent at Seattle, 
E. J. Brown, to proceed to Prince Rupert in December, 1916. The 
following extract from Mr. Brown’s report appears to be of general 
interest: 
The struggle netween Canadian and American fish houses and fishing vessels on 
the north Pacific coast for the control of the offshore fisheries of the north Pacific 
Ocean has reached a most acute stage. Under present laws regulating these fisheries, 
the advantage lies wholly on the side of Canadian concerns. 
The Canadian advantage, however, is not regarded as one of geographic position, of 
superior fleets, fishermen, or methods, or of superior transportation facilities. Natural 
advantages favor American cities near the fishing grounds, and American houses in - 
selling to and American vessels fishing for American markets. The Canadian advan- 
tage is considered to be the result of artificial stimulus by way of governmental 
regulations. The greater portion of the catch—at least 75 per cent—is caught on 
banks off the American and Alaskan coasts by American vessels and consumed 
by American people. The Canadian regulations are obviously a means to an end. 
The end is the ultimate assimilation, according to official Canadian documents, of 
the American fishing fleet on the north Pacific coast. Later, there are indications 
that it would lead to the control of the selling and marketing of the catch of the 
fishing fleets. At present the American fish houses, with the smallest investments 
