THIRTY-FIRST BIENNIAL REPORT 



11] 



of the term would hold and that, under that definition, a canner could 

 use any fish in his reduction plant, in excess of the 25 per cent, which 

 were of a size or condition which the canner considered undesirable 

 for canning. The Commission decided not to comply with this request. 



The Monterey season had been under way about a month when the 

 canners agreed among themselves that they would all pack 12 cases 

 per ton — no more or no less. Not all of the canners held to this agree- 

 ment when it was seen that the Commission intended to take legal 

 action to close the plants under the abatement provision. Others agreed 

 to make up the amount of pack they were short, if given time. When 

 some of the canners failed to make up their pack at Monterey, abate- 

 ment proceedings were started in the superior court of Monterey 

 county but, at the request of Judge Jorgensen, the case was heard 

 before Judge J. R. Welch, superior judge of Santa Clara County. 

 The result of this case was a victory for the Commission. 



Before the cases against the Monterey canners were finished, the 

 sardine season had started at San Pedro and, as some of the canners at 

 that port failed to pack as much as 15 cases per ton, abatement action 

 was started in the Los Angeles County superior court before Judge 

 Clair Tappaan. This case resulted in a decided victory for the canners. 

 Under Judge Tappaan 's decision as to the meaning of the term "fish 

 offal" and as to what is 25 per cent of the capacity of a cannery, there 



..^ 



Fig. 45. Tender delivering Mexican yellowfln tuna at San Pedro. 



G. R. Chute, June 15, 1927. 



Plioto by 



was no way in which the Commission could require any definite per- 

 centage of the fish to be packed. 



As a result of these two decisions, both the canners and the Com- 

 mission were placed in a position which was far from satisfactory, so 

 it was decided to carry the contest to the state legislature. All were 

 agreed that the law should be definite and without ambiguity and 

 should have "teeth" in it, in order that it might be rigidly enforced 

 and thus allow no canner or group of canners to use a greater per cent 



