FISHERY INDUSTRIES. 11 
VIOLATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS. 
The enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of 
the fisheries constitutes no inconsiderable part of the Bureau’s duties 
in Alaska. The importance of this work, as in the case of similar 
activities elsewhere, is obvious; for it is only as there is observance of 
the law that beneficial results in the proper conservation and develop- 
ment of the great natural wealth of the fisheries may be realized. The 
law is not intended to stifle legitimate enterprise nor to cause oppres- 
sive hardship, as might be inferred from the attitude of some of those 
who, because of their acts, either willful or otherwise, feel its force. 
On the contrary, it is intended to benefit directly and indiscriminately 
all who are concerned with it, which in this case is first in respect 
to those who are engaged in the business of taking fish and preparing 
them for market. Comparing the present-day situation with that 
which existed only a few years ago, it is undoubtedly true that there is 
now a more earnest purpose to comply with both the spirit and the let- 
ter of the fishery laws in Alaska. But, as the result chiefly of keen 
competition and confirmed cupidity, manifested in certain directions, 
more often by irresponsible employees, the necessity of never-ending 
vigil in enforcing the law rests as a constant duty upon the Govern- 
ment. It may be said, happily, that either as a result of closer super- 
vision and improved efficiency in enforcing the law or because of a 
better disposition to observe the law, there have been but compara- 
tively few violations of the fishery laws reported in Alaska this year. 
This is indicated by the outline which follows of the cases that have 
received attention. 
On Sunday, August 8, 1915, William Strand, of Haines, was found 
operating a gill net at one of the Chilkat Islands. The case was tried 
in the United States commissioner’s court at Juneau on August 26. 
The defendant pleaded hunger as the reason for fishing on Sunday 
and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. 
The charge against the Irving Packing Co. for having had a fish 
trap in operation on Sunday, June 28, 1914, was presented to the grand 
jury at Juneau in January, 1915, and a true bill was returned. On 
February 15, 1915, a representative of the company appeared in 
answer to the summons. It was then found that the indictment 
was in error in charging the offenders to be a corporation, whereas 
they were only a copartnership. To settle the matter promptly, 
the United States attorney filed a complaint in the United States 
commissioner’s court, and the representative of the firm pleading 
guilty, a fine of $50 was imposed. 
A complaint was made by Frank Dandey, charging an Indian crew 
with laying a net illegally across Sarkar Cove, west coast of Prince 
of Wales Island. The case was tried in the United States commis- 
