16 ALASKA FISHERIES AND PUR INDUSTRIES, 191L 



It ia expressed or implied that the law deprives Alaska of a very considerable 

 revenue; tliat there ia laxity in the provision concerning proof of liberation, and in 

 inspection and supervision of hatcheries that the law practically permits the canneries 

 to name for themselves the sum they shall pay as taxes; that no certificate of inspec- 

 tion has been filed since 1906; and that there is no check on the number of fry 

 liberated. 



In the matter of proofs of liberation it is true that the law requires only the affidavit 

 of hatchery owners or officers, but this does not leave the planting of salmon fry 

 quantitatively unchecked. The agents at the salmon fisheries know the capacities 

 of the respective hatcheries and have knowledge of the runs of salmon in hatchery 

 streams. It is in every way to the interests of hatchery owners not only to take all 

 the eggs available, to the extent of their capacities, but also to hatch and plant all 

 the salmon fry possible from such eggs. Exaggeration of importance in affidavits 

 conflicting with the known facts would be discoverable and would lead to revo- 

 cation of approval. Salmon hatching operations follow a well-known routine and 

 the aflSdavits of hatchery superintendents have thus far been consistent with the 

 available take of eggs and with the losses to be expected between the taking of eggs 

 and the liberation of fry. The inspection of hatcheries has been in accordance with 

 the law and as frequent and complete as the inadequate force at the disposal of the 

 department permits. The recent Congress has granted some additions to the personnel 

 of the Alaska Fisheries Service, and instructions have already been issued for a thor- 

 ough examination of all private hatcheries in Alaska during the coming season. 



The canneries have never been able themselves to fix the sum that they shall pay 

 as taxes. The tax is fixed by law on products, the quantities of which can not be 

 successfully concealed. By fraud the tax exemption could perhaps be increased 

 by petty amounts. No system of taxation could avoid this. 



The grand jury declares that "no certificate of inspection of a hatchery has been 

 filed with the clerk of the court in this division since the year 1906." This is quite 

 in accordance with the law. It is not intended that approvals shall be reiterated 

 annually — this would be supererogatory. Any approval once made stands until 

 current inspections show cause for its revocation. 



The principle of encouraging the operation of private hatcheries 

 by remitting taxes on the commercial output of the fisheries is sub- 

 ject to criticism on the ground that the remission is discriminatory in 

 that it favors the fishing industry solely, whereas the tax on other 

 industries is of general benefit and therefore is in true sense a tax for 

 revenue. In other words, the rebating system on the release of fiy 

 from private hatcheries is tantamount to no tax whatsoever so far as 

 the people at large are concerned. The present rebating system is 

 comparable to a plan of remitting the tax on mine stamps with the 

 understanding that the amount so remitted be devoted exclusively 

 to development work on prospective mining claims. 



On the other hand, the advocates of the tax-rebating system for the 

 release of salmon fry claim that the continuance of the fishing indus- 

 try is in large measure dependent upon hatchery work and that it is 

 no more than just that the few concerns maintaining hatcheries 

 should be reimbursed for their work. This argument in itself is fair 

 enough, and were there no diverse interests concerned in taxation, 

 the proposition would stand unchallenged. 



