TWENTY-NINTH BIENNIAL REPORT. 65 



The other faction wished to use a reduction process to extract sardine 

 oil to be used in connection with vegetable oils for human consumption. 



At the legislature of 1925 the out-and-out reduction interests, backed 

 by state organizations which wished a cheap fertilizer, showed a great- 

 deal of strength and before the bill of the canners was put in final 

 form by the Fish and Game Commission's attorney, the canners became 

 alarmed and entered into a compromise agreement with the reduction 

 interests under which an independent reduction plant could receive 

 five hundred tons of sardines per month for reduction purposes, and 

 the canners were to get sardines for their reduction plants up to 25 

 per cent of the canning capacity of their canneries. The manufacturers 

 of sardine oil and fish flour for human food were also to be taken care 

 of. The Fish and Game Commission was asked to agree to this compro- 

 mise with the explanation that if the Commission did not agree to this 

 the reduction interests would go after a wide-open reduction bill and 

 that the canners would join with them. This stand was backed by all 

 of the southern California canners and by about half of the Monterey 

 canners. It was the Fish and Game Commission's belief that under 

 the circumstances its opposition would not prevent the passage of a 

 wide-open reduction bill, so it elected to remain neutral with the 

 understanding that the Commission's attorney should put the teeth 

 in the bill for its easy enforcement. The attorney also drew up the 

 entire bill in accordance with the agreement between the canners and 

 reduction interests. "When the bill came up before the Senate Fish and 

 Game Committee the Commission stated its attitude of neutrality. The 

 committee, however, showed itself to be opposed to the idea of allowing 

 independent reduction plants to exploit the sardines and a subcommittee 

 was appointed for the purpose of amending the bill. The final result 

 was the elimination of the provision whereby independent reduction 

 plants could use five hundred tons of sardines a month. The bill pro- 

 vided that canners could. use sardines in a reduction plant up to 25 per 

 cent of their canning capacity and the capacity was to be determined 

 by the number of pound oval can closing machines installed and 

 intended to be used during the season. For each such machine installed 

 they were to get one hundred and fifty tons each month for reduction 

 purposes. The bill also provided for the manufacture of food from 

 sardine oil and from fish flour. This bill passed and became a law. 



When the question of enforcing this law came up in the fall of 1925 

 it was found that many of the canners believed the law gave them 

 the right to run one hundred and fifty tons of sardines a month in the 

 reduction plant for each line of pound oval closing machines installed 

 whether they ran them or not, and a number of them put in extra lines 

 of closing machines to increase their capacity and enlarge their reduc- 

 tion plants accordingly. The Commission believed the special privilege 

 to canners was based on the good faith of the canner and that he must 

 run his machines to capacity to get his capacity allowance for reduction. 

 In an attempt to reach an agreement with the canners on this matter, 

 all canners w T ere invited to a conference at the Commission's office in San 

 Francisco, but it was poorly attended and no agreement was reached. 

 The Commission finally decided to enforce the law on the theory that 

 to be entitled to the 25 per cent for reduction purposes the canner 



5—48323 



